civ1-addict is very concerned about the possibility of disbanding the new city. Emotions are running high, some people for keeping it, others for disbanding it. This is a poll to give guidance to the city's workers. Shall they be in the desert and such, to choke off food, or regular maximum growth?

This is not a binding decision, just guidance to get us going. And, be sure to vote for our government, and the exploration poll.

It would actually be a combination for me.

First we have the worker on the Ocean sqaure to get the extra trade, once the food box is almost full, we switch it to the desert until the settler is done.

So, basically, if the choice is to disband the city, the worker should be on the Water or desert square (choice 3 or 4)If the city is to stay, it should be on the shielded gassland, river square(choice 1). I'm not really sure why choice 2 is in there? ;)

Yes I agree with disbanding, and the workers should be on the desert square :)

As for the new position, I say the one in my screenie below, with the city site circled in white and specials circled in red (specials info taken from ainwood's screenshot)

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads/ren_screenshot_1.gif

That's a nice spot, Ren.
Besides the overlapping of one desert and one grassland river, what would be the harm in having both locations? This new city isn't perfect, but I suspect we'd have built a city on this same tile eventually.

Thanks for the poll Gary. ;)
I wanted this poll so that the choice of the people on this important issue is clear.

Before people didn't seem to care about overlap between cities so I really don't see the problem of doing what Sean suggested, and leaving Ninevah and then building another city where Ren suggests. It seems wasteful to me to disband a city that is virtually in the right location and could be used to produce settlers to speed up our creation of other cities.

I say keep it, but make it pump out settlers endlessley. Free settler factory!

Let it be.. If the legion comes up against any AI then the city seems pretty easy to defend(see hill). Also could be a scenic harbour for our settlers to embark for further colonisation of other continents

If we use it as a settler factory, then I think it has two advantages.

1.) It won't grow too big, so if we really find that its in the wrong place, we can disband it later.

2.) Having a city up north this far early on will mean that we save a lot of turns of travelling for settlers coming from the southern core cities.

I say keep it. :)

Woo it looks like more people want to keep it now 5-4. :)

I'd be inclined to keep it aswell! 6-4

I'm not sure what a grassland plains is. :crazyeye: ;)

I agree with ainwood that keeping the city for use as a settler factory would be a good idea as it will save loads of time to transport settlers from the homeland. We can still have a city where Ren suggested because this city will not miss two tiles from its radius. But I say that this decision is best made after the legion uncovers the other squares in the city radius because a forest tile would speed up settler production if that's what you want to do. I say we start building a settler here and then maybe another and use them to found the three special site Ren marked and the river mouth city. :)

Thats the second time someone hasn't read my posts and said that something I said, is someone elses idea. I did suggest earlier in the thread that the city could be used to produce settlers and so did Mordhiem.

Don't be so touchy! We all recognise the excellent work you have done and continue to do for the Demo game but I never said

I agree with the great idea that ainwood has just come up with entirely on his own.

or anything like that. Ainwood's not that smart. ;)

Duke o' York posted:
Ainwood's not that smart.

What the ....... Hey! ;)


Yes, I was just expanding on the previously mentioned ideas. I should've hit the quote button.....

Ok, calm down folks!!! ;)
It sure seems the city is here to stay, it will be a settler factory and probable give rise to many other cities! :)

Why throw away a city? I'm all for keeping it.

Is there any downside to having a city there besides the need for defense (which can be done easily by our units in the proximity)? Another advantage of the city would be IMHO that it limits the area of barbarian invasions/ uprisings.

Do we need a formal poll - To disband or not to disband? - (as this one is more of a poll on "how do we starve the poor suckers") or are we just going with the enlightened opinions that seem to gather here?

I'd say let's get on the safe side and have a formal poll. I haven't got the time, though, so would somebody else please do it?

I hope a formal poll can wait a bit. Right now, we have an idea that disbanding is still an inflammatory subject, and a poll to direct the city's workers for a few turns.

I can see it may be difficult for me to stay out of the newspapers. I know, a Chariot IS different from a Horse. But to me, its just an exploring unit (one is, the other is in the barn). I mean, people are touchy about who said what, and the newspaper fabricates, then publishes, things that look like quotes!

A clarification, if possible. A Grassland Plains River is, uhhh, let's see... a yellow river square is what I meant. I've since checked, and its a useless idea anyway. The real choice for now is, Grassland River, or Ocean (then Desert, as The Duke of Marlbrough pointed out very nicely).

Disbanding the city immediately will squander a great opportunity :( . I agree with those who say it should be a settler factory. We can populate planned city sites so much sooner this way :) . As Ainwood mentioned, we will still have the option of disbanding later...

I would say to keep it and turn it into a settler factory. Then later on down the road if we see fit, disband the city.
I would also not want to waste resources by building any improvments until we decide on disbanding or not.
We should be able to get some trade and production along with a little bit of food to churn out the settlers. This should allow us to use the other two cities to concentrate on greater matters.

Okay, I know I raised the whole issue of disbanding in the first place, not because I was necessarily in favor but because I thought the issue should be discussed. happily it is now, and reading the arguments presented here I am in favor of keeping it. I think we can make it fit in our city scheme and having an early city in this location has many advantages that others have mentioned. This said, I say put the workers on the shielded grassland river and plan on keeping this city and making lots of settlers!

The city is a keeper and it shall be known as....that's going to be the surprise from your new president! :lol:
(if you don't like the joke I'll change it back ;) )

Hmmm, I can't wait to see what he calls the city...

You won't have to wait anymore. :)