Any reasons Im missing to move capital from Constantinople to Rome?
Doing a Byzantium playthrough like everyone else right now, but my big holdup of forming Rome itself is this notion that my capital automatically moves to Rome. Is it just me or is that just kind of a straight up nerf compared to Constantinople?
Constantinople has the strait, a 2m+ pop potential city, a great market, and most importantly lets you connect land governors all over Anatolia, Balkans, and Greece, getting easy max proximinity throughout 3 solid markets at least. And with your Naval governor in Napule alone you can cover most of central/southern italy.
Whereas if I form and move to Rome it feels worse in every way. The market is further South in Napule so my capital doesnt even get that, you lose your land governor chain in Anatolia/Greece and would go super low control in the bulk of your empire's wealth/pops. I guess it could be better if I take the whole boot to the Alps and into France and use my govs for Venice/Genoa/etc., but that seems like a hell of an uphill battle once I swap capitals.
Is it just rp or is there an advantage to rebasing my whole center of power West?