Informational: What tiles should we count for our province size?

[ravensfire]

The current discussion and poll on provincial borders is bogged down over what tiles to count for the 126 tile limit.

Link to Discussion
Link to Poll

To help gain an understanding about what the citizens in general think, I’m posting this poll. Please vote using one of the following options:
Land Only: Count only land tiles – no water!
Land and Lakes: As above, but include internal bodies of water
Land, Lakes and Coastal: As above, but include all Coastal tiles
Everything: Count any and all tiles
Other: Please explain
Abstain: I don’t really care

Thanks!
-- Ravensfire

 

[Cyc]

As this entire plan was developed around 126 LAND tiles, it should stay that way.

The reason LAND tiles were chosen and approved earlier was because that gave an equal amount of tiles to each Province/Governor to place cities on (excluding Mountains). You can't place a city on a Lake or in the Coastal WATERS. Adding Coastal tiles to the tile count subtracts from the Province the available tiles to place those cities on.

Vote Land Only

 

[Rik Meleet]

Vote land only.

The tile-count was a means to the end of having about the same amount of cities (+/- 1 or 2) for each province. If we include water-tiles, the end is gone.

Of course you could say the same about mountains, but you have to draw a line somewhere.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Rik Meleet
...but you have to draw a line somewhere.

All I can say is:

 

[Sarevok]

Land only

 

[TerminalMan90]

Vote land only
It is my view that costal waters are international waters. I believe that there was provisions made for labourers working in a city radius in other provinces. Costal waters will be treated this way as well. No need to include them in the province boundaries.

 

[DaveShack]

I would like to point out that the question for this poll is very precisely asking what tiles to count when placing provincial borders. It is not asking where to place the borders. The interpretation I plan to use when drawing borders is to include the correct number of tiles according to this poll, and if the poll says that water tiles don't count then the borders may be extended into the water without counting those tiles and without breaking the rule.

 

[Cyc]

Why would you want to do something like that DS. That will just cause confusion down the line and make the Provinces appear unequal in size. In my opinion, in your attempt to please a few people with your plan, you will not only cause problems for a larger group of people, but will expend energy on a plan that serves no purpose in defining borders. Plus you would be eliminating one of the options of this poll.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

I would respectfully submit that we go back to the drawing board and bring back provinces that are defined by natural borders. However that would require an amendment to our ruleset.

In the meantime, I think that our provinces should consist of 126 land tiles. And rather than include the coastline tiles, let's just forget about outlining the shore altogether. Just draw the border between provinces, as one would do on almost any map. No need to outline the natural border that the coast provides.

 

[donsig]

@Cyc: It makes sense to include water tiles in the provinces as DaveShack intentds (whether you count them towards the 126 or not) because water tiles can be used by cities. Since it is quite possible that one water tile can be used by two different cities in two different provinces it would be nice to know which governor gets the say in that tile's use.

 

[Cyc]

Thanks, donsig. In my opinion, it's better to base a rule on general principles than try and cover seldom seen (if ever) circumstances that could be worked out independently.

In any situation where WATER tile ownership could be disputed, an arrangment could be worked out similar to the one North of Deux Rivieres, where a tile can be shared by the Capital city or Vandelay. I don't see this as a major problem.

BTW, nice sig.