Possible relocation of Ise

[Gingerbread Man]

DZ has suggested that we relocate Ise. I think it is an excellent idea. There are whales off the coast to utilise, and we would still be able to reach the one square of grassland. I have set up a map with all the suggested points where we could relocate it to. I'll let you decide which point is best, and enter my opinions after.

I realise that this could have gone in the polls section, but this suggestion is still in its discussion stage, and there may be more suggestions out there that are better.

 

[Falcon02]

I think Tile 2 would be an ideal spot., with a harbor it could become quite productive.

 

[Fier Canadien]

I vote for tile 2 too. I was thinking about both 2 and 4 but 2 is already roaded, so the city will be re-implanted in 0 turn, unlike site 4.

 

[Stuck_as_a_Mac]

This is a threadjacking, please put all of your shiny things in the bag.
DZ wants New PDX moved 1S. Any thoughts?

 

[Fier Canadien]

I think that New PDX is a more discutable thing. It is a size 5 city with some culture, and that is not the case of Ise. I am more reluctant to move such a developped city than Ise.

 

[Chieftess]

New PDX should have been 1 SE (our city location really stunk this game. ), but anyway...

I vote for square 4. Not only is it next to gems (we HAVE to take our lose of borders into consideration. ANY gems lost that affect trade will cause a rep hit) but tundra only produces 1 food. We could use sites 4 and 1 and possibly 5 for an ICS build.

 

[Goonie]

4 is a much better choice. Sure it will take longer to set up, but it will be more productive than 2. Closer to the gems! We dont want to miss out on all those shields and gold per turn do we?

 

[Gingerbread Man]

Dapperdan's Culture extends 3 squares, right? if it does, we should still have all the gems within our borders if we were to abandon city. By the way I recomend square four. sure the city will be built 1 turn later, but we would only be able to get 2 gems if we took square 2. in square 4 ise could get 3 gems and use them all.

Choose square 4!

 

[Octavian X]

I would prefer not to move it altogether (just as a principle - waste of production)

However, I would favor 2.

As for New PDX, why would you move the happiest place on earth?

 

[Gingerbread Man]

Dont move established cities. Its generally bad.

however, Ise is and unestablished and weak city. it is useless, almost.

Also, why site 2? because it is already on road? that, I believe, is bad judgement. putting the city on site 2 to save 1 turn is not worth it. Site 4 would allow the city to utilise 3 gems, instead of two. the city would have enough food to take advantage of all 3 gems, while at site two one laborer would have to work on a standard mountain.

 

[Almightyjosh]

Also, because Novgorod is likely to grow bigger than Dapperdan (due to more sea less mountains) it makes more sence to put Ise on space 4 where it will share space with a smaller city. And we don't want to loose all those pretty gems from the city radius do we?

PS Hello everyone

 

[Chieftess]

Hi! Welcome back!


Once again, it looks like we're about to shoot ourselves in the foot with city placement. (site 2). Remember, relocating cities causes the culture borders to change, and that means LOSING GEMS!!!! Lose any traded gems, and we suffer a rep hit. Why? Because those trades will be cancelled. Plus, it would take time to build culture in that city (and rushes are going to take priority on the border cities)

 

[Donovan Zoi]

@Chieftess - Dapperdan should still retain most of those Gems within its city radius(at least 5). Plus last I checked we still had a surplus of them to trade....I want to say 4. We should be OK.

 

[Gingerbread Man]

Yes, I thought ahead and saw that dapperdan's culture extends 3 squares from the city. if you look at the map above, that radius encompasses all the gems concerned. WE ARE NOT SHOOTING OURSELVES IN THE FOOT!

In square 2 we will get 1 less gemmed mountain than in square 4, all for the sake of a movement bonus! so why is square 2 popular? It will produce a weaker city.

 

[Plexus]

Ise's relocation is not needed as it is already a well established city. This can only hurt us.

 

[Shaitan]

Definitely move it and definitely move it to #4. Saving one turn on moving the city isn't much of an incentive. In fact, it's countered by the "free" road that would be acquired at site #4. It takes more than one turn to make a road so it's more efficient to move the city to #4.

 

[Almightyjosh]

@ Plexus et al
LEAVING Ise there can only hurt us! As it is Ise has very little access to any useful tiles, by moving it to space #4 we create the possiblity of a resonable city with a habour and strong production.
As it is the maximum food it could produce is 9, if we move it to space #4 this increases to more than 20!! Any drop in sheilds is offset by the extra sheilds from the whale and the loss of the trade from the gold square is again offset by the gain of sea sqaures and another roaded tile!!
There is really nothing better!

(Plus, I would like to know how this poll will be interpreted, it is clear the majority of people wish Ise to move, but cannot quite agree to where and thus no one option may outwiegh the 'don't move'. Tell me, is the Polls office functioning still?)

 

[Octavian X]

It depends on your definition of 'function,' AJ.

Technically, an official poll is unneeded. Nowhere in our magnificient colection of rules is there mention of moving cities. The governor would simply set production to settlers until the city is gone, and domestic could order the settlers to build New Ise.

 

[Chieftess]

Looks like tile 2 is winning, but I think tile 2 will hurt us. Why? Culture borders - we'll be leaving possible gaps, and we might lose a gem or two. Also, it doesn't fit the ICS pattern if we chose to go that way.

 

[Eklektikos]

Tile 4. Gives Ise increased growth potential via harbour construction, as well as access to all those remaining highly productive Gems tiles which Dapperdan isn't going to be able to work due to its own terrain imposed growth limits. It will also, as Chieftess has mentioned, allow a future ICS strategy, which could well prove beneficial.