EDIT: "Southeat" is meant to be "Southeast"

It's now time to decide where to place the capital city. Due to time constraints, this poll will only be open 1 day. Here's the discussion link, (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=95659) and here's a map for lazy people: http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads8/DG5_BC4000_Fur_largefullstart.jpg

I think we should settle north. That way, we're on the river, we've cleared out a jungle square, and we still can use both wheats.

northwest, we get what appears to be coastal square, river, and the 2 wheat squares.

The Good Witch is in the North! Go there....

Well I believed that immortal phrase "The good die young" but I suppose I can tolerate that annoying sparkly dress...

Go North Son!

I hope nobody votes without reading the "CIty Placement" thread.

I assume "abstain" means that you think the city should be settled where we are. I personally think that East is the best option, although I can see arguments for North, Southeast and Northwest.

While people are allowed their own opinions, could we have remedial classes for anyone who even thinks about settling West or Northeast ;)? I see absolutely nothing to advocate West over Northwest, and Northeast just wastes a turn - we may as well settle where we are if we do that?

NorthWest is the best: costal, river, 2 wheat, bonus grassland and more.

I still feel East is the best option, there's plenty of other Forests nearby for the 2 spt, we don't waste a BG (potentially, though most), we keep the river, and we remain close to 2 hill tiles. The sheilds wasted from not "cutting" the forest down I don't feel will be that much of a waste compared to getting our start right.

Secondly, Cyc's concerns about losing a Forest 1 food 2 sheild tile, seem unfounded, as the Northern site provides us with 2 known Forests within the radius, and East provides 3 known Forests (obviously not including the one we'd settle on).

Noldodan, 2 things:

1. Even though it was bypassed as an unsavory prospect(despite its 3 bonus grassland, 2 wheat and settling on Turn 1), you still should have included "Build it where it is" among the list of options.

2. In the future, do you think you can post all polls as public polls? This way, the public can gain insight on how all members of the House are voting on issues, and who is taking part.

Thanks!

BTW, since I missed most of the discussion, I voted Abstain, which can also be construed as the woefully misinformed "Build it ASAP" option. ;)

My vote's for sale.... ;)

Too bad this isn't a public poll. ;)

North would be good.

I like North, we're still on a river, get 2 wheats, don't loose any BG's, have a chance of being coastal (I like that) and get a floodplain. Our 2nd city can go easterly, not loosing many of the benefits Provo shows.

Benefits of SE over North: Only 1 jungle, as opposed to at least 2 jungle. Coastal tiles are mostly useless until we build a Harbor. For production, in the North we have a hill and 2 forests, while SE we have at least 4 forests and 3 hills. Who says the jungle we settle on won't be a BG? We still get the floodplain.

If North wins, heaven forbid, lets at least send the worker there first to make sure we're not getting ourselves in a jam with a bunch more jungle tiles. please, please, please, please, please!

North! And for the sake of being able to post, I'm typing this filler. And hey, if you saw Wicked, G(a)linda is not exactly that great of a witch herself

I like North, we're still on a river, get 2 wheats, don't loose any BG's, have a chance of being coastal (I like that)...A city built on the northern tile will most certainly not be on the coast. In fact, it looks like our best chance to get a city on that coast, other than settling our capitol NW of our current position, is to build our capitol E and then build our second city NW,N of our current position (or in that general vicinity).

If North wins, heaven forbid, lets at least send the worker there first...That would essentially waste our worker for one turn. I'd much rather have the worker begin working our current location, but if we insist on moving the worker as a scout, then I'd suggest we move him either NE or NW so they can get to work next turn as opposed to waiting until the 3rd turn before they can begin improving the terrain.

PS. What difficulty level are we playing?

I don't see the benifits of the North, yes we get rid of one Jungle tile automatically but there's more right there. We're taking 2 tiles within radius, to 2 tiles within radius. Not really a benefit IMHO. Also, Going North will reduce the number of known hills within radius from 3 to 1. At least east we take it down to only 2 hills. What's the point of having our Capital as a high growth city if we're afraid to keep it close to high Sheild production tiles (ie. Hills)?

FortyJ we're playing On Monarchy

Monarch? That's way easy... Losing the worker turn or two shouldn't matter really that much..

North: read all other comments on that ;)

Northwest and east are both fine... east makes a good city and lets space to build another good city to the NW...

Damn! :D I voted on NW instead of East... East needs votes... is it possible to change it?

This is a case of "should we move the worker first?". If we move north, it may not be next to a coast. We could wind up losing several coastal tiles (up to 4 or so!) just because we're not next to the coast for a harbor. Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot with city placement again.

From the screenshot, it appears that the only possible coastal tiles within 1 turn of our current position are NW, W, and SW. W and SW deny us access to the river, so those do not make much sense. NW will give us fresh water from the river and ocean access, but it may not be the best location for our capitol.

N keeps us on the river, clears the jungle and keeps us 1 tile away from the 2 wheat tiles, but it does not appear to be on the coast. Furthermore, it is so close to the coast, that it may prevent us from building another riverside city on the nearby coast. E on the other hand, does not clear the jungle, but it does keep the 2 wheat tiles within close proximity, plus it allows us to settle our next city on the river and the northern coastline.

there is no posibility to vote "built right here" I'm disappointed :(
I'm abstain then

Where's the option to settle where we are? We should at least have the choice.

I'm surprised so many people are voting for the North. Sure, we clear one jungle. But there is at least two more. Judging by the minimap, we are in the center of the world, which does not have small patches of jungle, it has rainforests. So if we settle there we have a good chance of getting five jungle tiles. And those don't go away easily. We clear one by founding it there, and add five more. Plus we lose the southern hills and forests. We also make it so a city founded at the mouth or the river, which would be a good, close, port city, would be too close to the capital. I really don't see why anyone would choose that over east, where we clear a forest, get at least two (probably four) flood plains, two wheat, and a lot of hills and forest, and southwest, where we get pretty much the same.

The vote change above seems to have been used to justify choosing E over N. It's not the President's job to question leaders' interpretation of the WOTP, but I'm not sure that it is a good idea to honor vote changes, at least on non-public polls..

[party] Yea! Let's hear it for Public Polls!...I mean [party] Yea! Let's hear it for the North location. This is great! No if we send our first Settler 3 tiles to the South and plant on that hill, our second city will have great production and growth. Yehaww!

Everyone, it turns out the Will of the People does not matter. The capital was built north despite the tie and resulting tiebreaker on Noldodan's part.

Which prooves not only that there was more than one jungle north of us, but also my theory that if I don't attend all hell breaks loose. And I skipped this chat to prove that wrong, so I wouldn't feel so obligated. :mad:

Again, in these situations a poll with only two options would be best because those who vioted SE wold probably have backed E over N :-)

Just suggesting imporvemnets, not complaining.

I would recommend everyone to read the chatlog, so people can make their own judgement on what really happened, this is yet another Florida 2000 situation.
I also want people to consider this chatlog, threads and so on in order to understand how the different decisionmakers think and act. I also support that we went for 3 extra turns, which will also preempt telepathic strategizing with wishing branches, fantasizing and hollow rhetoric, but a real map, with real links to the civilopedia and a qualified analysis.

Yes, we need new rules of engagement, criteria city building and finally another type of polling regime. I would certainly have backed east ver north, north was my last choice after that hill.

in the future we should have public polls on city placement. I want people to know who did which decisions, so they can take future rhetoric with s grain of salt.

Provo, use the edit button! Where's the chatlog btw, Ive not found it yet...

Again, in these situations a poll with only two options would be best because those who vioted SE wold probably have backed E over N :-)

Just suggesting imporvemnets, not complaining.

Same for people who voted for northwest, they would have voted for north.

THat still puts E/SE 18 - 17 N/NW

I think polls such as this should be limited to a few, if not 2 options, whoever voted W or NE should 'take remedial classes'
While people are allowed their own opinions, could we have remedial classes for anyone who even thinks about settling West or Northeast ? and are clearly not really options which would benefit.

A couple of options:

The appropriate ministry could limit the choices for us. From the prior discussion it was obvious that there were only a few well-supported places of settlement.
An alternative could be preferential voting. Would have to be implemented off site though.