Citizen Discussion has started here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31142).

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads/demgame2start.gif

(I'll put up a non-gif image. ;))

This poll will be open for 48 hours (until the next turn chat).

I think it's a great spot. 3/4's of the way up the map is a good location and we have access to what looks like the ocean, mountains, hills, grasslands and forests. Plant that settler!

Hehe. I am abstaining. I don't know if we should settle there or not because we don't know what is on the other side of that mountain next to us. It could be the promised land.:D

I would like to say lets vote on moving the worker onto the mountain and then reassess, but that would slow the game down too much.

I favor setteling where that setteler is at :). We dont have to worry about any aquaducts later on ;).

That looks like coastline to the north. It's worth a sacrifice of 1 turn of production to plant the capital on a coastline. I say move the settler one tile north.

Incidentally, isn't this poll a bit premature? We've barely had a chance to discuss the options yet.

Our citizens wanted the poll during and just after the chat.

Originally posted by Chieftess
Our citizens wanted the poll during and just after the chat.
What citizens wanted that? I've been trying to hit everything on this forum and I didn't notice any discussion about launching a premature poll...:confused:

my question is why move the settler? At the difficulty we are at it may cost us in the long run. Most civs (ai) in the game plant a settler as soon as they "appear" and start building their warrior and start their science discoveries. We can always build more cities and deal with optimization later. The capital city doesnt have to be the most productive city, just evnough to produce the necessary sheilds to ensure a new settler and military units. I think building the settler near a body of water is the best way to go. So plant that settler as is

IMHO, we should go for the grasslands inbetween the lake and coast. This way, the city which will likely be our highest production city until factories come along will be able to build naval units, not to mention the trade and food we can get from them.

Originally posted by FionnMcCumhall
my question is why move the settler? At the difficulty we are at it may cost us in the long run. Most civs (ai) in the game plant a settler as soon as they "appear" and start building their warrior and start their science discoveries. We can always build more cities and deal with optimization later. The capital city doesnt have to be the most productive city, just evnough to produce the necessary sheilds to ensure a new settler and military units. I think building the settler near a body of water is the best way to go. So plant that settler as is

I agree. you'll waste valuable tech research time if you move.

Originally posted by Shaitan

What citizens wanted that? I've been trying to hit everything on this forum and I didn't notice any discussion about launching a premature poll...:confused:

I think this is the standard, "we are here, let's keep playing mentality." This is also the reason I don't like turn chats, but that is another matter entirely.

There apparently was some debate during the chat regarding going ahead and settling, as well. Luckily Chieftess decided it was not a good idea.

And thank you for that, CT. I posted my opinion in the expansion and city placement threads in the citizens sub-forum and above.

I think the reason for the poll is because this was game creation and the next chat is two days away. Chieftess wanted to give the people a two-day poll. I really would like to see what's over the mountain to the SE and I would really like to give Shaitan more time to convince me that a move 1 tile North would be beneficial. But I don't think either event would change my mind.

Maybe a 2 option poll would have been good, as we obviously have 2 options: the move-north and the settle-now one -)

Maybe we loose one turn in settling, but it is a big advantage to be on the coast. We amy be on a small island, and then we would need as many cities a possible on the coast.

I say, move one north and then settle. Putting ourselves a single turn behind will proove less costly than having a capital with no sea access.

i think its fine there we can cut the forests down later on which will be mined and mountains for increased production and no need for an aqueduct

well, the forst cutting can also be done from the spot 1 north... also the mining. or maybe for our next city.

I was going to say that founding here is fine but forgot that, unlike in Civ 2, you can't use the lake to get through to the ocean. So instead, I think we should move north and found on the square between the two bodies of water. This will still keep the deer thing within the eventual radius and mean that we can start to produce ships there. With the production potential of this site then we can have quite a navy! I see that the shield-producing squares are quite numerous and therefore we will still have a lot if we move to the grassland. The worker should move first of course to see what we can get from the other squares but it'll be worth it. What difference does a single turn make at this stage, when your first tech will take 40 turns to research?

Ah - a thought! If we put the city there then will we be able to use the freshwater lake to irrigate through the city or not? If we can't irrigate on the other side of the city (which I think is dumb, because all cities are irrigated automatically) then maybe my spot isn't ideal after all. Can someone advise me on this before I cast my vote please? :D

Does that tile in the north give us an aquaduct? Then, go for it.

@duke o' york: Yes, we can irrigate squares on the other side of the city.

Well in that case I say to move northwards. After all, we need to be size 3 before we can start releasing settlers so we'll need the grassland to grow quicker. If the worker uncovers the tile to see if there is indeed furs to the north (as Chieftess believes) then that would also make sense. :)

Go north - cities with beaches are always nicer!

The reason I like where we are is access to the game bonus square from turn 1.

Originally posted by Chieftess
Our citizens wanted the poll during and just after the chat.

Some, not all, of those at the darn turn chat wanted it right away. Some people can't seem to remember that there are other citizens out there!

What about the following proposal:
We put up an instruction like this:
"if we discover a bonus research of the type [list] then we settle 1 north. If not we settle where we are. The worker is sent north first to reveal the tile."
The [list] is what we have to define then.


Or maybe we get a quick approval for a nightly short-chat (or offline version) tonite moving the worker north.

I agree with those who said placing it where it is.It's on a lake,has luxury,mountains,plains,...
BTW,are we sure there is an Ocean in the North and not just another bigger lake?
Every time I still move my settler in the first turns,something bad happens.

Just a question. If going to the North one square revealed a game square (for example), what would we gain from being where we are now?

However, I like dis' proposals. I wish we could move the worker once and then decide if this is what we want.

Go south young man...

BTW, what happens if this poll turns out to be "No"?

Originally posted by chiefpaco
Just a question. If going to the North one square revealed a game square (for example), what would we gain from being where we are now?

However, I like dis' proposals. I wish we could move the worker once and then decide if this is what we want.

The sole reason for going north is to have a coastal city.

Let's move down south where it is warmer.

Nah. I hate sweating. I like it a bit cooler.

Sorry about this, but a long-time Civ 2 player is having trouble getting my head around this. It's the irrigation question again I'm afraid. Thanks to (bloody) Ek for the explanation before, but I just want to make certain of this.
The rubbish graphic below is made with keyboard characters only so please bear with me. :)

G_O_M_M
G_G_L_F
G_S_F_M
G_G_F_H

So if we put the city on the bold grassland which is next to the fresh water supply, we can irrigate the grassland on the other side which only borders the ocean to the north. (Not irrigable until Electricity as I understand :eek:).

Originally posted by chiefpaco
BTW, what happens if this poll turns out to be "No"?
It doesn't really matter what it turns out. It was put up without discussion so is invalid. We're having good discussion right here though so let it go for now.

@ duke 'o york - Yes, we'll be able to irrigate on the other side of the city.

Originally posted by duke o' york
Thanks to (bloody) Ek for the explanation before
"Bloody"?!?

What've I done now? :confused: :crazyeye:

Even if we couldn't irrigate through the city we could chop down the forest next to the lake and start the irrigation there.

Great spot, settle there. One of the later cities can be coastal!

@josh- any province name ideas from this shot?
i voted yes. were acquaductless and near a mountain chain. you guys complained about iron being inacessable, heres you iron

I would normally (in my own games) just plop the first city down right where we are. But I would have no problem with moving one tile north here to get the coast, and the harbor/shipbuilding/etc. that would come from that.

i vote we not move the settler.
plant the town and move the worker to the shielded grassland to start a road. once we get our first warrior we can sweep the mountains. If we move the settler north to the coast we lose some of the culture range to the sea.

move the worker up one square and then decide, problem mostly solved, because of now it is mostly pointless to debate this if we dont know what is up there, if we move the worker up one and take a look at what there is, then the debate will be much clearer as if it is worth giving up our first move settle bonus for a costal city, but as of now it is too difficult to debate. And if we move up we can still irrigate if we cut the forrest down, as was mentioned already. That given i must abstain on this poll.

Edit: ALso, if you look closely near the mountain chain that is bordering the vast expanse of unknown to the north east, you can see a shoreline, so it is likely that if we found our city one spot to the north it will be costal.

We could decide on whether we settle up 1 north if we find x or y up there with our worker.... for example.

this poll could be decided by doing one thing: moving the worker up there first. if we see something we like, we settle. if not (for some bizare reason), we dont.

Well if this poll isn't binding then we would have to create another one pretty darn quick to make sure its approved by the citizens by next turn chat, but then by the next turn chat we will have to stop on whether or not to plant our settler where it went or decide to go somewhere else. MEANTIME we lose VALUABLE TIME in researching techs and falling seriously behind. Move the worker and see what happens, but im sure once we do that we have to take it to poll yet again. I love the democratic process as much as the next person. Back in the old times when the british, french, spanish and any of the Old World countries came to the New World they first plunked down in the first ideal spot they found (which we have) and moved around exploring for other ideal spots. it didnt matter to them because they knew there was a possibility for more cities. We've got an optimal spot, use it, we always have more opertunity to expand, and i for one dont want to lose this game by getting ambushed by a barbarian just because we cant decide on settleing or not.

Nicely put, Fionn. There seems to be more support for the opening spot, whether determined by this poll, or judging by the arguments of the debate.

Well, i didnt like this poll from the start, as it was only a one option poll without discussion and ignoring other opportunities...
But as it is up and running, we had to comply :-(
Next time, there should not be such a quick-shot. I think this poll would NOT have standed judical review out of the above reasons anyways to be valid and as such binding ;-)