Should i change my capital to Belgrade cause i am Byzantie and i was previosly Serbia but Byzantine and Serbia merged because of marriage and i am now wondering after 100 years should i change the capital to the old capital of my dynastie
Change the capital
- Thread starter unmerged(530776)
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Pick coastal counties with many barony-slots for your demense.
You can keep your old capital out of sentimentality. But making it the capital? No especially good idea.
You can keep your old capital out of sentimentality. But making it the capital? No especially good idea.
Why there is where my Dynastie started well Rashka really but as soon as i got my hands on Belgrade i made capital and as you know i am Serbian so i preffer my city than carigrad on slavic or on English translation Tsar's City
Good reasons for changing capital: reducing distance to outlying vassals, better province tech level, for reasons of fluff.
Sooo stick with Contantinople. Or check if some other Greek province is better.
Sooo stick with Contantinople. Or check if some other Greek province is better.
Belgrade is bad/not optimal because:
-it is inland (can't get harbors for increased taxation or ships for that matter)
-it is farther away from the other Byzantine vassals and they will like you less for it. A capital should always be centralized.
-number of holdings is inferior to Constantinople
-less developed than Constantinople (most likely in your case)
-inferior tech level (compared to Constantinople) and tech level is important in your capital.
-the duchy where Belgrade has a small number of holdings
Did I miss anything?
-it is inland (can't get harbors for increased taxation or ships for that matter)
-it is farther away from the other Byzantine vassals and they will like you less for it. A capital should always be centralized.
-number of holdings is inferior to Constantinople
-less developed than Constantinople (most likely in your case)
-inferior tech level (compared to Constantinople) and tech level is important in your capital.
-the duchy where Belgrade has a small number of holdings
Did I miss anything?
It has a better geograpic position and the muslims can't reach it so fast if they declare war to me and if i make it my capital it shall devlop fast.
But on the flip side, you can't load troops for amphibious assaults, and your mercenaries will have to walk to the coast before being loaded and deployed in the frontlines where needed.
Ah, CK2, when did you turn into HOI2...
I have Wuttemberg as my capital, it's in the middle of Germany is that dumb? Because i already pimped out the main holding.
Serbian war strategy: move your leader as far away from the fighting as possible, let Muslims reach the most important (at that time) city in the world.
Seems about right.
As for Beograd, what if the Hungarians attack you? They are in the next province, and can besiege Beograd by the next month.
Your capital should be a developed, coastal city in the middle of your realm, as others have pointed out.
I'm Byzantine & I have Antioch as my capital, reason is because
1. I'm Nestorian
2. Constantinople holdings have been looted by the Fourth Crusade (I started at later date)
3. A good chunk of my Empire is in Egypt & Arabia
I guess you need more reasons than just war issues to justify your capital move. Usually if the enemy ever thinks of landing their army on Constantinople straight away they paint a big red target mark for your army; you can do the same to them with greater number.
1. I'm Nestorian
2. Constantinople holdings have been looted by the Fourth Crusade (I started at later date)
3. A good chunk of my Empire is in Egypt & Arabia
I guess you need more reasons than just war issues to justify your capital move. Usually if the enemy ever thinks of landing their army on Constantinople straight away they paint a big red target mark for your army; you can do the same to them with greater number.
While w're on the subject of optimal capitals for various realms, what do people think is the best capital for Russia? Kiev is the "traditional" capital in the game files and it does have the most slots (7) in Eastern Europe, but anywhere in the duchy of Bulgar starts with advanced muslim technology (mostly due to dev oversimplification of the tech system- anywhere that starts Muslim or Greek no matter how far north gets advanced tech). I would tend to think Bulgar would be the best capital early on, mostly for the technology bonus, despite being inland and somewhat farther east from the main holdings in Rus and Ruthenia.
Kiev should still be the ideal capital, but to ease your technological concerns, why don't you "export" those technologies back to Kiev?
Example: You demense limit is 10. Get Kiev & 9 muslim holdings, the rest of your future holdings you give to the people who will eventually "return" it to you. Now while you have some tech speedups for Kiev, focus on tech buildings & focus all your tech councilors in Kiev. In no time (~20-30 years?) Kiev will have on par technology & now you get your original holdings back, you can spread your newfound technology in Kiev to those other holdings. The muslim ones you distribute to vassals
Example: You demense limit is 10. Get Kiev & 9 muslim holdings, the rest of your future holdings you give to the people who will eventually "return" it to you. Now while you have some tech speedups for Kiev, focus on tech buildings & focus all your tech councilors in Kiev. In no time (~20-30 years?) Kiev will have on par technology & now you get your original holdings back, you can spread your newfound technology in Kiev to those other holdings. The muslim ones you distribute to vassals
its just plain dumb to change it back there.
1. it has INFERIOUR tech
2. it isnt even half as rich as constantinople
3. its inlands, and thus bad for retinue's, mercenaries and the like
4. in a war, youre just ASKING for it to be conquered. constantinpole is very well developed, can withstand a long siege, and is nicely centralised and coastal and is thus easly relieved and liberated
5. belgrade isnt even in a major duchy. antioch is still very rich, cairo and baghdad are inlands but have a ridiculus amount of holdings, heck even some backwater area's like upper burgungy, samos, crimea or the like are better capitals given the right situation. belgrade is on the ditch quickly list.
also, if about EVERYONE says NOOO! and you just dont want to listen, why even bother asking?
1. it has INFERIOUR tech
2. it isnt even half as rich as constantinople
3. its inlands, and thus bad for retinue's, mercenaries and the like
4. in a war, youre just ASKING for it to be conquered. constantinpole is very well developed, can withstand a long siege, and is nicely centralised and coastal and is thus easly relieved and liberated
5. belgrade isnt even in a major duchy. antioch is still very rich, cairo and baghdad are inlands but have a ridiculus amount of holdings, heck even some backwater area's like upper burgungy, samos, crimea or the like are better capitals given the right situation. belgrade is on the ditch quickly list.
also, if about EVERYONE says NOOO! and you just dont want to listen, why even bother asking?
For the reasons people have outlined here, the response is "no, you really shouldn't, it's a terrible idea in every sense in terms of game mechanics"
But hey, it's a sandbox game. If you want Belgrade to be the capital, then just do it.
But hey, it's a sandbox game. If you want Belgrade to be the capital, then just do it.
Surely its your own choice For roleplaying, you may want to choose Belgrade as capital. If you play normally, i recommend Constantinople over all else.
In terms of strategy Constantinople is probably the best, but I think you should choose what you like the best.