(Quick Poll) Build city to counter Denver?

Hidden beneath the Denver's "city name box" is an iron tile. This map shows all the possible sites that would allow us to reclaim it via cultural assault.



This would be the first city to be built at the next Turn Chat

The results of this poll will be interpreted as follows: if the combined "yes" options garner more votes than "no" or "abstain", then the most popular of the "yes" options will be used.

Discussion pertaining to this poll may be found inthis thread.

This poll will run for 24 hours

A

It has to be coastal or it'll be a scrap city. That leaves A, D and E.

E would not help in containing American expansion from Denver. The A or D spot could quickly expand borders with a city near the furs to lock the Americans in.

Using A allows the new city to swap share an additional grassland and forest (could be deforested to grassland as well) with Valhalla to allow reasonable growth.

I say we reclaim our iron the old fashioned way, with the sword!

Sorry, Shaitan. I'm with donsig here. The city will be more of a pain than a help. I feel that it's not a good use of a Settler. The other locations to the SW are all better.

This poll is not really laid out fairly. It's 5 against 1.

I kinda agree with you about the poll layout, Cyc. With hindsight I can certainly see better ways in which I could have polled this issue. I posted this in a "Damn! I botched the other poll! The chat is in less than 24 hours! ARGH!!!" state of mind this morning, and now realise that it was foolish of me to take such action while under the influence of so many exclamation marks.

Unfortunately I'm not sure that there's anything to be done about it at this late stage

That's OK, Eklektikos. I'm fighting a losing cause here anyways. The people want "A".

I'd rather do it the other way as well but we can't do that until we're at war with the Americans. It's going to be a while before that happens (hopefully) and we need that backup iron source. Keeping it out of American hands is also a nice bonus.

i voted no to all the options. Even though option a iaatainable it cuts off the settler factory of valhalla and i didnt choose the others because if we placed a city there the americans would declare war in a heartbeat. Id rather take denver

Site A is good since

1. We will have another port City

2. Its perfict for the front lines of the Culture war

3. Once we have pushed back Denver's borders, we eill have that Iron thus cutting of the American's iron supply (Assuming that is there only source of Iron )

If not the sword or another city, we should consider a library in Valhalla.

Late to the game, but here are my opinions regardless:

1. Culturally assault America? With what? Doesn't a country have to be in awe of, or at least impressed with our culture to have a shot at this?

2. Waste of a settler. We need productive cities now, to produce offensive units to help us if we are to take on Japan. Let's go after the iron due west with our next settler.

3. With the current settler, I'd rather grab the two furs to trade when we build our first harbor. The frontrunner in another current poll allows for this. Site A in this poll does not.

4. As a staunch opponent of the close build theory, I am vehemently opposed to a town buing built within another's city radius, especially a productive one like Valhalla.

Eklektikos,
At this point in our history with a possible war on the horizon, we should aspire to what we know can happen(military production, possible trades) rather than what we hope might happen. We can still block further American expansion with our city placement choices. And we can deal with the little town of Denver in due time.

Well said, Donovan.