Origanal discussion was here: Eastward Expansion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54325)

Which city plan should we take for expanding to the east? NOTE: This is NOT "Should we expand this way?". This is not a priority poll. This is simply city locations for the east. I will post a comprehensive poll/discussion next for the city priority


http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads4/DG3_BC0775_XP1.jpg

http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads4/DG3_BC0775_XP2.jpg

Vote for Option 2. This one IMO would see less City overlapings.

I also voted for option 2.

I agree, two is the way to go.

I voted One as this option only has 7 overlap tiles as option 2 has 12.

I like #2 as well, as it will allow us to culturally claim the hills. With this, we can better defend ourselves against the most powerful country in the game --- on our terms.

Ok, put me down for "other" and see this alternative for the dye city, and adjust accordingly.

I know, it's not likely to change, but gotta throw out an idea... ;)

dye city alternative (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1010374#post1010374)

I'm going to vote for plan 2, as plan 1 will give us quite an overlap is we decide to capture any egyptian cities :evil:, especially at El-Amarna.

I've not had sufficient time to decide which of these options I wish to vote for as yet, but I must say that I'm not sure I understand the rationale behind the antipathy towards city radius overlap displayed in this thread. Particularly since both options appear to me to be erring in the direction of OCP style spacing where feasible, a build pattern I consider less than efficient in the earlier stages of the game when no city can hope to expand past the much vaunted "size 12". I would personally prefer more overlaping radii than either of these plans contain.

This poll has been rated UNFAIR by the PSC for failing to satify the mandatory requirements of a fair poll.

Assessment (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1015012#post1015012)