Is the new capital terrain bonus a good enough reason to not have a capital on flatlands?
For those unaware, in 1.2 they made it so a capital on terrain reduces the proximity impact of that terrain by 20%. So, hills go from -25% to -20%, mountains from -50% to -40%, and flatland from -0% to -0%. Obviously, this is to make countries that play with a majority of non-flatland terrain less terrible.
However, you are ideally centralized around a whole area of flatlands, like France or Italy or similar, so you shouldn’t need the bonus. In addition, having a capital on hills or mountains or even a plateau hurts dev, and still hurts proximity a decent bit, as all your territory is -x% further. So is it worth it to try and find an otherwise-ideal capital with hills or something and use it to help spread through the rest of your country, or would it be more harmful than helpful?
Obviously it is for some all-hills terrain, but what about flatland to the east and hills to the west, with some isolated hill between? Would it be worth choosing the hill over some other (equally valuable otherwise) flatland capital, or would the reduction be helpful enough to generate more control/productivity in the long run?
I’m sure there’s cases, and I’d love to hear some if anyone’s found any.