Hmmmmm, way to get more than one palace?

wvfoos · September 30, 2002, 13:46

Is there any way to KEEP other countrie's palaces once I take their capitals? So it will help keep hte corruption down far away from my palace and forbidden palace?

Is there a way to set the editor to allow you to retain far flung palaces in cities that you capture?

zeh · September 30, 2002, 13:50

No.
There's no way to keep the palace or any cultural building on captured cities.

BTW, you can lower corruption in the editor, so the effect can be almost the same.

ChrisiusMaximus · September 30, 2002, 13:54

If you alter it in the editor wont it make the AI better off too?

zeh · September 30, 2002, 13:59

Yes.
But I think this is the way it should be.
If you get only a bonus to the human player, the balance of the game will be affect a lot against AI.

ChrisiusMaximus · September 30, 2002, 14:12

Is that wishful thinking there or do you know how to do that Zeh.

wvfoos · September 30, 2002, 14:21

I originally had a big long post to start this thread, and by accident deleted it, so instead of retyping it, i just made the shorter version you see above.

Here is the gist of the original long post. I think it ties right into the "bonus only to the human player" aspect.

Playing as rome, I had 8 or 10 cities, and took over an iriquios powerhouse of a city on the edge of my empire. i put the forbidden palace there. Rome was also a powerhouse, with plenty of food, lots of shields and commerce. So it was good that it had low corruption. Oh, this is all in monarchy, btw. Anyway, I went on to march through the egypt/american/and greek capitals, each bascially farther away from my P and FP. Some of those cities I took dduring my campaign, were also powerhouses, but the corruption was killing production in them. I know I could move the P from rome, but that would cause the 5 or so powerhouse cities I had close to rome, to be affected bigtime with corruption.

My thought is, yeah, temples, cathedrals, libraries, etc should be destroyed when you take a city. However, the roman way of conquering historically, was to basically allow indigenous people to do their own thing, they were just roman citizens, and had to pay taxes etc. In other words, there wasn't necessarily the overpowering presence of rome permeating the whole empire. It was that whatever went on before, continued, but was just now part of the roman empire. Sort of also like how the french colonization theory differed from the english. Soooooooooo, as the romans and french let the indigenous people run the administration of the conquered lands you'd think what passes for corruption in civ3 would be be somewhat thwarted a bit.

That's why I think if you capture the FIRST capital of an AI player, you should get the palace in that city as well. Forget the banks, temples, etc. You have to build your own culture that's fine, but you would at least get a break on the corruption. And of course, if an ai takes an ai capital, they'd get the same benefit too.

zeh · September 30, 2002, 14:22

I'm playing a game now with a lowered corruption.
I think I put corruption level at 85% on regent. This make things more interesting, because I can have a lot more cities with real production, and not only crappy cities that do nothing except spend money with gold rush, or buildings maintence. They real do somenthing.
So your empire can be bigger, and the things tend to be more fun. At least for me.
Ah, and the game is generaly shorter, because you get more money and research, so you can advance fast.

Knightblade pDM · September 30, 2002, 15:41

I have the corruption set at 75% in my mod, and it makes things go a heck of a lot faster..I was actually thinking of lowering it more(not below 50%), but it might make things go too fast, if there is such a thing in this game

bbaws · October 5, 2002, 14:50

I was posting on the other stie on similar topic when I mysteriously got banned.
My tactic for "multiple palaces" goes like this:-
Unedited game.
FP built close to capital.
First great leader used to gain a victorious army.
Defeat a neighbour.
Shift palace to centre of defeated territory.
If a furhter GL appears save until democracy.
Up the lux rate so that you get WLTK day around new P and around FP.
Concentrate on infrastructure around new palace.
Defeat next neighbour and use GL to build new palace again in the centre of acquired territories. Repeat and rinse.
WLTKD has a cumulative anti corruption effect, so if you keep it going while you get courthouses happy givers and such built around the palace you don't lose all your production and commerce when the capital shifts.
It's still frustrating, and it takes a shocking amount of micromanagement but (a) it's not as galling as having 150 cities producing one gold and one shield (b)it's very satisfying when you get it to work.
As a rough estimate you are looking at moving palace only after it has been in place for 80 or so turns with your luxury rate at 20-30% throughout.
Makes sense if you consider that the real FP is in Beijing, placing it near your empire's core gives you the freedom to shift your palace without disrupting the core.

vmxa1 · October 5, 2002, 15:03

I am not too fond of holding on to a leader for more than a few turns as you can not get another while one is present.

bbaws · October 5, 2002, 15:31

True, if you are shifting your palace it makes sense to have long spells of peace though. So GLs won't be appearing anyway.
The whole thing falls to bits if you run into a dearth of GLs. By the time tanks and MAs appear and GLS become ten a penny it's too late to implement palace shifting anyway.
WLTKD is easiest to accomplish, imho, in democracy. Any city that would benefit from shifting the palace to it is likely to take 1000 turns to build it by itself. Given the choice I'll save a GL appearing near the end of a war until I am close to the start of a new war. If I'm not palace shifting I almost never save GLs.

Theseus · October 5, 2002, 20:56

By nature though, aren;t you in ongoing wars (or close to it) until you have secured an optimal location for the new Palace?

vmxa1 · October 5, 2002, 23:44

Thesus, you and I are probably going to be in war enough to not hold out. I am not big on moving my Palace. I go to war for extermination mostly. It is likely to be in modern era when I have a big empire and do not need leaders much, so will drop a palace with one and go on to the next episode.

Theseus · October 6, 2002, 01:51

vxma1, I think we have fairly similar styles. I was just making the point that IF one does want to move the Palace, it is by nature going to be immediately following warfare... so why reserve a GL? (which I wouldn't do anyway, 90+% of the time)

I'm guessing you agree. And, btw, you should experiment with Palace moves... Catt got me into this, and it works quite well.

vmxa1 · October 6, 2002, 02:20

One aspect (among many) of my game that is not well developed yet is FP and Palace. I tend to ignore them alot, not because I feel they are not useful, but because I get too involved and keep putting it off. Next thing I know is it is no longer relevant and is an after the fact process.

Theseus · October 6, 2002, 02:57

Catt's observations about moving the Palace really perked up my attention to this. I don;t jump my Palace around so much, but an earlier FP, and a smart Palace relo really make a difference, and is something worth trying... I've been surprised by how beneficial it can be.