Printable View
Hello there,
My question is exactly this one:
"Do you move your capital to a 'central province' when your empire grows or do stick with your original capital?"
There are the pro and con about moving:
- pro => distance = less unrest, and
- con => roleplay aspect, as "(insert your capital) caput mundi".
How do YOU decide? And WHY do you decide so?
Thanks in advance for answers.
Yours,
Treverer
When I play as the Selukids, the first thing (well second, after activating the script) I do right at the start of the campaign is to move my capitol to Selukia. Makes holding onto the Iranian provinces possible and saves me +2,000 mina per turn in corruption penalties. Plus, I wont need to move it again after that, for it becomes Selukia, the eternal city, in the center of the Empire, which in turn is the center of the world. Has a nice decadent universalism to it.
I never move my capital no matter how big my empire gets. It is Rome and shall remain Rome, THE TRUE capital of the world. :2thumbsup:
I don't think that anyone would move his capital as Romani or Karthago. With, for example, the Sweboz or Pontos I move my capital in many campaigns - but often leave it afterwards where I have chosen.
Where exactly do you move your capital when playing Pontos? Eastwards or westwards? Just of curiousity from a regular player of Pontos ...Quote:
Originally Posted by konny
With Kart-Hadast, I once had to move it to Taras. Only way to keep hold of Hamilcar Barca's conquests in Asia Minor.Quote:
Originally Posted by konny
I usually expand west in the beginning and place it in Nikomedia. That helps me a little to keep the Thracians and Pergamons from rebelling as long as I don't even have the money for pacification. Since it is still homelands, I would say it is ok from the roleplaying point of view.Quote:
Originally Posted by Treverer
I always keep it in Amaseia. Can't leave the tombs of our glorious ancestors!
I have moved it with the Sauromatae, but it hardly matters for them...
I usualy move to Sinope as the Pontics, then Babylon once I have "liberated" the old achemnid noblity.
I nearly always keep my capital the same. The few acceptions are one time with Epirus I moved it to Pella to show I was the true heir of Alexander; and one time when I rebuilt the Persian Empire with Hayasdan I move it to Babylon, which I rebuilt as a huge capital.
When playing as Sauromatae I moved it around quite a bit, try to achieve their VCs without it... wonderful campaign. I shipped 6 units of Indian archers and went with them and some Steppe nobles, HAs and Drapanai all lead by my Steppe "Hannibal" (a promising young general I raised in Seleukeia where an academy existed and gave him the best ancillaries). With them I raided Patavium, Bononia, Viennos and Swebotraustamnoz hiring a few mercenary Gauls when my armies were low... ahh what a campaign... It all ended in 170 I believe.
As KH I Always move my Capitol to whoever the Faction leaders city is, which after the first generic spartan guy dies, is usually an Athenian(I like'em better)
As Pontos, Ancrya ends up being my capitol once I complete the conquest of Anatolia, mainly because its a central city.
As Casse its almost always Camulnosadae(the start city) because its basically London.
As Sweboz, I always choose Scandinavia, heh for obvious reasons.
As Arverni/Aedui its a central position, mainly because of the Generic Tribal structure, and because I have no idea where their capitol is.
Lustotanna-Whoever's the faction leader's city.
Seluekia-Antioch or Seleukia
Armenia-The oringinal capitol or whatever keeps peace.
Getai-Whatever keeps peace
Baktria-Alexandros(the city a lil' south of baktra) once I get it and build it up
Sakae/Sarmatians-Eh, I dunno
Carthage/Rome-Carthage/rome
Ptolemy-Alexandria, all the time.
Saba-Harder choice, Petra after I get it.
Pahlavi has a lot of historical options for a capital. They switched it quite a few times.
When playing as the Romans, I keep my capital at Roma no matter what. There is something very symbolic about the city on seven hills, I'd feel like a "traitor" if I moved the capital.
Fellas related with this problem i just want to change "distance to capital" penalty. Which document related with this issue?
Yeah, it varies by faction IMO. For something like Rome or Carthage (or the Saba for that matter) it's pretty obvious why the "home city" ought to stay as the faction capital, and it'd be a little strange for the Ptolemaioi one to be moved out of the Nile delta region. Ditto for the Seleucids and the Antioch-Seleukeia-Persis axis, and the Macedonians and Epirotes with their respective royal homelands.
The others are a more laissez-faire bag. The Koinon Hellenon are basically a confederacy of more-or-less independent cities and their respective spheres of interest, and about any large province with a type I or II gov located reasonably centrally should be a legitimate option. Ditto, more or less, for the Sweboz, Lusotannan and various Celts - any central location with type I or II gov seems good. The Getai might conceivably tend to stick to their starting capital or, once they capture it, Sarmisgethusomethingorother instead.
As far as the Hayasdan go, they're practically a feudal kingdom centered first on Armavir and later more generally on the Caucasus "Homeland" region with a longer-term "neo-Persia" bent. As RP goes, Armavir is obviously the premier choice but any of the Homeland provinces would probably seem legit after the Pan-Caucasus Reform - and *not* shifting the capital to Persis once you get that far would really just not be trying.
Pontos appears rather similar but more strongly centered on their starting home city - still, any Homeland region with the appropriate governement type would strike me as OK.
Baktria ought presumably chiefly stick to Central Asia and the Indian provinces, unless it goes and takes over the Seleukids wholesale of course.
And the steppe guys should just stick it where they feel like it serves a purpose - these folks tended not be too hung up on formal fixed locales anyway, and the Pahlava for their part are in the business of turning from a steppe empire to a settlesd one via conquest and should as such "creep" their adminstrative centre forwards in pace with their territorial aquisitions.
Hardcoded, AFAIK.Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Legioner
I find it a shame that moving the capital in RTW doesn't incur some temporary penalty; some preperation time with high cost, and decreased income for a few turns after the fact would have been nice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaesarAugustus
Agreed, True Romans come from Rome.
In my baktrian campaign, it's Babylon. I'm rebuilding the Persian Empire(have been since 1.0 came out). First it was Baktra, then it was Hekatompylos, then Susa, then finally(forever more) Babylon.
:beam:
I keep my capital in Roma, the city where all roads lead too. :book:
That is something I do with the Sweboz too. I have no idea what some kind of Germanic empire would have looked like, but I suppose it would have been very federal, like the Mediavel German Empire. In one campaign I roleplayed it so far that I changed the capital everytime the king enters another town, representing a court moving from Pfalz to Pfalz.Quote:
Originally Posted by Olaf The Great
For the factions I play, Carthage, Epeiros, it makes not much sense for me (in rg terms) to change capital, believe the same for Romans and Ptolemais
Carthage- Carthage or Sidon
Rome- Rome
Parthia- Persepolis
Sweboz-where ever
Pontus-Babylon or Nicomedia depending if I feel hellenic or persian
Armenia-Armavir then Babylon
The Successors + Baktria and Epieros sans Seleucia . There starter then Pella if I conqueror it with the nearby successors .
I'm fairly sure Babylon was never a major adminstrative and political center for the Achaemenid Persians though; although of course its sheer size and wealth and location in Mesopotamia made it very important, it was AFAIK never heavily associated with the Persian concept of kingship itself. That was the purview of Persis proper, the original capital of the Persians around which their empire was built.
I moved my capital to Sinope as Pontos. Not really any benefits.. it's just what they did in reality upon seizing it. Plus if you're going to build a naval super-power, you should probably have your centre of power within eye-shot of the ocean, no?
IIRC, their capital was first Susa, then Persepolis. If I'm wrong, correct me!Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
T.
I'm trying to keep Rome in the middle of my expansion area :)
I can see in the future that, as the Casse begin to dominate Gaul, the capital would be moved, especially if a member of the continental tribes asserts status as the Brenn. Although I do like konny's idea of moving the capital with the Faction Leader, might work that in somewhere.
Interesting ideas to return the power to the original lands of the Phoenincians:2thumbsup: Though it may make dificult to administrate Iberian holdings:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by russia almighty
Didn't some of the later Roman emperors move the capital away from Rome? If I'm not wrong (and I may well be) it wouldn't necessarily be that ahistoric to move the Roman capital, especially after the Augustan reforms.
I agree it would be nice to be able to put in some penalties for moving capital, such as having to build an expensive palace in the new capital, unrest in the old capital etc and it would be even nicer to have big penalties for losing your capital.
The later, much, much later, Roman Emperors have moved their capital/headquarters quite around a lot. For example Ravenna was a long time capital in the West, while it was Nikomedia before Byzantion in the east. But there were even more of them, for example Augusta Treverorum, the today Trier, can proudly claim to have been capital of Western Europe for some years.
Infact moving the capital is not a problem the real problem is why should we do that?
"Distance to capital" is just a foolish thing the game has.
If you have a vast and strong empire why should we suffer from about distances?
Instead of distance if CA should has been made a militarical and financial algorithm for this issue it should be better.
Neither you live in Britain or Iberia any subject of Roman Empire think twice before any revolt against the empire? Because you know that the legions shall crush you without mercy.
Distance is not a problem the problem is your economic and militarical capability.
In my Pontos campaign i rule 50 provinces from Byzantium to Persepolis, Sinope to far corner of Egypt and this distance problem ruined my whole pleasure of campaign.
I have full stack 4 army in Egypt and 3 army in eastern Persia and strong reserve in asia minor plus a navy to move them fast. 30.000 Denarii at least per turn and my capital is Seleukeia.
But
I've stucked.
Ptolemaio and Seleukids escaped to the far corner of their realm and constantly send small armies or i call it bands to disturb my Empire. I cannot move from any frontier city against them because of huge distance penalties.
This is ridiculous!
One of the small Ptolemaio city had 400 population rebelled against my army (which is in the city) and nearly a thousand Slave army appeared.
How can i beat them if i can't move?
If i have had a chance i'd remove distance to capital penalty. :wall:
Plus, all provinces that i have has converted to the Homeland, Satrapy or which is correct way of potential that they have. Connected with the paved roads and advanced buildings...
Tip: use M.A.A.'s City Mod, if you want paved roads.Quote:
Originally Posted by Little Legioner
.
As Lusotana, I do move it. The game forces it upon your throat with 65% distance unrest. :wall:
May I suggest the EB people to negate that with added happiness/law in type III/IV governments? :help:
.
Not moving your capital while playing the AS = riots in all eastern provinces at turn 3.
Once I'm settled with public order, I sometimes move my capital from Antioch to Seleukia and vice-versa, depending on my leader's traits.