Is it worth it to move the capital to the new world in a wc? (2024)

Question is in the title. I was thinking about a ming-> shan->yuan->mughals-> culture shift to russian->move capital to oceania and then north america-> should be done around 1520 to 1540-> form russia run (just because i want 20 extra states) With influence as starter, so that it is possible to prevent muscovy from formimg russia and integrating kazakh, mongols, yarkand without waiting too long before i can make russian the primary culture after forming the mughals (influence mainly due to dip rep, as a harmonized religion doesnt give benefits to integration speed). That means explo will be the second idea group (enabled it in the options) i dont care too much about spain or portugal. I will just take their colonial nations after they are done and i have my capital over in america. Explo will most likely be dropped around the time the whole world is in range for becoming tributary which means around 1620 if i take my time and do it mostly peacefully. The capital shift is obviously for tc exploit.

In a nutshell: i will own everything anyways. Now in terms of gameplay colonial nations would be the way to go because that would lead to faster colonization. However in terms of income is it better to own the new world directly or indirectly via cns?

(Sorry for any typos and bad style but this was written via phone) thanks for any answers or thoughts

Indirectly is always better, but directly allows for true One Tag.

Wasn't the "move Capital to Alaska to benefit from Siberian frontier" patched?

Indirectly is better because of state limit. A lot of the game now is about bypassing the state limit in different ways to get good income out of non-state land. TCs are the big one and the most important (which means you do not want your capital in Asia, this is crucial). CNs are also okay, and you can easily make a few hundred ducats a month from tariffs. PUs are quite good because you can feed them up to be big and powerful in their own right without their getting high LD. If you want any of their money you have to Siphon every few years, but that is quite manageable. PUs will more provide you with theoretical military power and some actual military help that you have limited control over. Another way that I saw suggested recently was to make a vassal, make it a March, and enable Divert Trade. The more I think about that move, the more I can see spots where it would be very handy. Gulf of Aden particularly comes to mind if you are in Western Europe (where there is no TC but it's a key node in terms of funneling trade back from India).

If you want True One Tag you will have to move capital though. Otherwise it's best to have it in Europe or Oceania. Though you will want it in Europe by 1710 for Revolution.

Alright thanks. It is kind of weird though. My intuition was leanimg towards the belief that a direct monopoly with direct control should get me more money. Maybe not for taxes and autonomy, but in terms of trade and production. Oh well. I think i might go true one tag anyways. I am thinking of getting the most ridicolous state developements on the way. And the best states for that are mostly in russia, eastern europe, china and the new world (i am thinking about 5 province states without bad terrain or 4 province states with COT's, great terrain, and or gold). I dont want russian ideas. I want yuan ideas but switch to russia just for the 20 state age bonus in the age of revolutions. When you are patient and stack development boni you can develop decent terrain up to dev 20 without paying more than 10 monarch points per development. And being emperor of china gives you ridicolous amounts of monarch points.

I mean this is a silly run in every way and i am aware of it but oh well. After x-thousand hours thats the kind of stuff that you do because this game is so god damn good. I mean i play on vh just because i want the ai to have higher development. It's not like vh or very easy make much of a difference with ming

Sfan said:

States are a waste for a WC. All money comes from TC and Trade. bbq did a One Tag with one state, that doesn't actually harm you a lot.

Click to expand...

I gather he didn't make any permanent states because he wanted to repeatedly switch cultures/tags, in order to abuse permanent claims and Nationalism CB. If you're not tag-dancing, States are potentially OK.

Sfan said:

States are a waste for a WC. All money comes from TC and Trade. bbq did a One Tag with one state, that doesn't actually harm you a lot.

Click to expand...

They're definitely not necessary, but they're only a "waste" if you spend the mana to full core them. You can get "free" full cores from annexations. In addition to the extra income and manpower, the flexibility in managing estates is handy as it allows more fine tuned control if a crappy event hits.

But yeah, they're not needed and counterproductive if you plan on tag switching shenanigans.

It depends how hard you want you want to tag-dance, really. But there are a few constants:

1. You don't need more than 1 state. You can make loads of dosh from TCs. Manpower doesn't matter so much when you mostly rely on mercs. Manpower buildings still work perfectly well in TC land anyway.

2. You should be willing to unstate land en masse in order to achieve a key tag-switch (like into Italy for their ideas). If you've been integrating stuff you probably have unused state cores lying around anyway which you can state up after the tag switch(es).

3. There are loads of ways to get value out of land without making states. This is important to do even if you don't ride the state limit.

Your approach will depend on your chosen playstyle. TCs are super-OP no matter how you figure it, though. To the point that I'd have the TC-enabling DLC on par with stuff like CS and AoW in terms of how essential it is.