Croatia and Hungary both moved capitals several times during this period, mostly due to loss of capital to Ottomans.
Moving Capital
- Thread starter unmerged(37697)
- 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.
What I find most annoying in EU2 (talking about capitals) is that you can't get the enemies capital province in a peace-deal unless you annex the whole nation. But being able to move capitals would be great, especially if you're supposed to be able to get new state-cultures during the game. Denmark moving their capital to Anglia etc. (providing ofc. that they've conquered England)
It should definelty be doable, however there should be various penalties for moving such a huge amount of goverment adminstration and buercracy, as well as various other limits such as a time constraint or a stablity drop if you do it too much.
Basically make it doable, but not something you can just keep doing every time an enemy gets close to it in a war (allthough it should be possible in war as it was a fairly common practice)
Basically make it doable, but not something you can just keep doing every time an enemy gets close to it in a war (allthough it should be possible in war as it was a fairly common practice)
Why not just have a price tag on it? I don't think you should get a stability hit, but you should have to pay a sum to simulate all the money lost in the movement.
IMO you should be able to change your capital, but I think that you should get definetely an high RR in the old capital province, which is a factor there has always been. Eg in Moschow there was a high disapproval for Peter's decision. I think stab hit at least -2, except for some cases (eg if you lose your capital to the enemy)
There should be a significant cost associated with moving the capital, enough to prevent you from doing it anytime you feel like it without thinking, but also allowing you to move it if there are very strong reasons for doing it. It should cost stability, money and possibly bring a few small DP changes with it. There should also of course be positive effects on the province moved to, and negative effects on the now ex-capital province.
The target province must have some basic requirements, like being a national province, and having a minimum tax value (I suggest it needs to have a minimum value OR just be richer than the old capital). If these are no met, the capital cannot be moved. These restrictions are realistic and will have realistic consequences. For example, it will realistically prevent France moving its capital to an over-fortified Guadaloupe just for defence purposes. Also, I assume that in EU3, like in EU2, the location of the capital does have some economic consequences which need to be considered, which in themselves dissuade too ridiculous displacements.
The best way to design a historical/realistic game is in a way that makes the player play realistically because he benefits from it.
Here are some good non-historical examples of when I'd like to move my capital, either due to practical considerations or just flavour, and it's also be historically realistic to do it:
- Order of Saint John manages to conquer Egypt from the Mameluks and moves capital to Alexandria to have a more central location.
- Scotland conquers England and moves capital south to a more central location.
- Burgundy takes French crown and moves to Paris just to show who's the new boss.
- More or less any Eastern European power conquers Istanbul and moves capital there due to the prestige of the location itself (well, the Turks actually did, but I also think almost anyone would have, especially any smaller power based in the Balkans).
To conclude - For this feature, I think the following two rules suffice:
- New capital needs to be a national province.
- New capital needs to have a certain minimum tax value OR just be richer than the old capital.
Then, the cost in temporary stability loss, possible DP changes and MONEY is the price to pay.
The rest should take care of itself by the common sense of the player. For the AI, AI events for certain locations might be the best way to guide it.
The target province must have some basic requirements, like being a national province, and having a minimum tax value (I suggest it needs to have a minimum value OR just be richer than the old capital). If these are no met, the capital cannot be moved. These restrictions are realistic and will have realistic consequences. For example, it will realistically prevent France moving its capital to an over-fortified Guadaloupe just for defence purposes. Also, I assume that in EU3, like in EU2, the location of the capital does have some economic consequences which need to be considered, which in themselves dissuade too ridiculous displacements.
The best way to design a historical/realistic game is in a way that makes the player play realistically because he benefits from it.
Here are some good non-historical examples of when I'd like to move my capital, either due to practical considerations or just flavour, and it's also be historically realistic to do it:
- Order of Saint John manages to conquer Egypt from the Mameluks and moves capital to Alexandria to have a more central location.
- Scotland conquers England and moves capital south to a more central location.
- Burgundy takes French crown and moves to Paris just to show who's the new boss.
- More or less any Eastern European power conquers Istanbul and moves capital there due to the prestige of the location itself (well, the Turks actually did, but I also think almost anyone would have, especially any smaller power based in the Balkans).
To conclude - For this feature, I think the following two rules suffice:
- New capital needs to be a national province.
- New capital needs to have a certain minimum tax value OR just be richer than the old capital.
Then, the cost in temporary stability loss, possible DP changes and MONEY is the price to pay.
The rest should take care of itself by the common sense of the player. For the AI, AI events for certain locations might be the best way to guide it.
The Witch-King said:
While I agree with the 1st point, there's a problem with the second point, because just off the top of my head, I can think of two new capitals which were basically just empty swamp land until the move (St. Petersburg and Washington, DC).
As far as I recall, even Madrid was a little bit more than a small village when the capital was moved there from Toledo.
There was even more disapproval of Peter's decision in St. Petersburg, considering that it was populated largely with conscripted laborers from Moscow.klaudio83 said:
And a lot of foreigners as well, which caused a lot of resentment.Lachlan said:There was even more disapproval of Peter's decision in St. Petersburg, considering that it was populated largely with conscripted laborers from Moscow.
Before and after the bureaucratisation...
Before the bureaucratisation of the european states the capital was where the king was at the very moment. There weren't a lot of institutions that needed to stay put in one place. Therefore it ought to be very easy to move your capital before the 17th century or something like that as long as you don't move it to a foreign redneck province like czar Peter did. If you, in those times move your capital to one of your kingdom's thriving cities you shouldn't loose more than 1 stability.
However if you, after the government has been bureaucratised, move your capital you ought to be struck by a major stability loss, a loss of money by building new workingplaces and homes for your civil servants and also income losses for a time while your institutions are recovering from the major reorganisation.
It should also be harder to change your capital if you are a noble och magnate republic compared to being a absolute monarchy.
Before the bureaucratisation of the european states the capital was where the king was at the very moment. There weren't a lot of institutions that needed to stay put in one place. Therefore it ought to be very easy to move your capital before the 17th century or something like that as long as you don't move it to a foreign redneck province like czar Peter did. If you, in those times move your capital to one of your kingdom's thriving cities you shouldn't loose more than 1 stability.
However if you, after the government has been bureaucratised, move your capital you ought to be struck by a major stability loss, a loss of money by building new workingplaces and homes for your civil servants and also income losses for a time while your institutions are recovering from the major reorganisation.
It should also be harder to change your capital if you are a noble och magnate republic compared to being a absolute monarchy.