Proposed Amendment to Article C of the Constitution

[Bootstoots]

This poll is over an amendment proposed by DaveShack to Article C of the Constitution.

Summary of its effects: This amendment will allow us to legally hold foreign cities beyond the one city per civ limit, provided that we disband them by the end of the active turn. Curently, no more than five cities plus one city from each foreign civilization are allowed, with no exceptions.

Current article:

Article C. Game Structure
No more than 5 cities built by Fanatikos may exist at any time. In addition, only one city from each foreign civilization may be taken by any means. All other cities that we gain must be razed immediately.

Proposed new article with changes noted:

Article C. Game Structure
No more than 5 cities built by Fanatikos may exist at any time. In addition, only one city from each foreign civilization may be taken by any means may be held by Fanatikos at the end of a turn. Any other cities beyond the limits stated in this article must be razed immediately or abandoned prior to the end of the turn. Foreign cities may be acquired during a turn or between turns as long as enough cities are abandoned prior to the end of the turn to comply with the limits stated in this article.

Proposed new article, as it will read if passed:

Article C. Game Structure
No more than 5 cities built by Fanatikos may exist at any time. In addition, only one city from each foreign civilization taken by any means may be held by Fanatikos at the end of a turn. Any other cities beyond the limits stated in this article must be razed immediately or abandoned prior to the end of the turn. Foreign cities may be acquired during a turn or between turns as long as enough cities are abandoned prior to the end of the turn to comply with the limits stated in this article.

The discussion thread on this can be found here.

This poll will be open for 96 hours. In order to pass, it must receive at least 13 votes (half the census of 26) and the approval of 67% of the voters, abstentions not included.

 

[Strider]

I'll keep it simple, No I don't agree with this amendment. Actually, I'd prefer to completely remove this Article from the constitution.

 

[Civlord]

No, this is totally unecessary. What can we do with a city if we are going to disband it in the end of the turn, without producing anything? This is simply useless, and we don't need it. We should consider razing the city or not accepting the culture flip. However, I would approve an ammendment saying that we could hold it for two turns, so we can at least pump a worker, rush a settler or do something useful. But this is not the case here.

 

[Black_Hole]

NO! We should never create a law that will kill our own citizens. If we accept citizens into our culture, we cannot then kill them.

 

[donsig]

Hmmm.... are you all trying to play a five city game here or what?

 

[Strider]

Hmmm.... are you all trying to play a five city game here or what?

No, one third of us want to play a 5CC, one third wants to play a 5BC.. and the other third wants to play normal.

 

[Bootstoots]

Hmmm.... are you all trying to play a five city game here or what?

We're playing a variant whereby we can only build five cities, but we can capture one city from each foreign rival as well. This amendment is on whether or not to approve captures of foreign cities for less than one turn (followed by disbandings) outside that limit.

 

[ravensfire]

After thought, I cannot support this change.

DaveShack is correct, most 5CC variants allow cities to be retained until the end of turn as a way to get resources and additional armies.

We do not have the same, strict restrictions as a 5CC. We can capture one city from each civ, and need to do so intelligently. This change somewhat "dumbs down" that process.

I believe this change is not needed, nor warranted. I vote no.

-- Ravensfire

 

[greekguy]

This proposal is for the massacre of foreign citizens being welcomed into our empire. Is that the type of people we want to be?

 

[Cyc]

This proposal is for the massacre of foreign citizens being welcomed into our empire. Is that the type of people we want to be?

Sorry, I don't see this analogy working. It is actually letting this people live a bit longer. I like the idea of the "end of turn" rule. I voted yes.

 

[Black_Hole]

Sorry, I don't see this analogy working. It is actually letting this people live a bit longer. I like the idea of the "end of turn" rule. I voted yes.

No that isn't the motive behind this...
The motive behind this is destroying cities by peace instead of military
The idea is to get as many cities as posssible in peace, they raze them to cripple the Germans.

If this amendment doesn't pass we will have to attack cities to destroy, so we are killing German citizens instead of our own.

 

[DaveShack]

Not that it matters in this environment, but...

The motive behind this is to allow ourselves the option of choosing to take cities by peaceful means and then destroy them. Nowhere does it say we must do this.

Whether we destroy a city using military or via abandoning it, it is still destroyed. The difference is whether additional people (in the form of units) are also put at risk. Do we not mourn fallen soldiers?

A correct analogy would be if a RL government told another RL government "either give us your city so we can dismantle it and disperse the population, or we will take it by force and disperse the population -- either way the population will be dispersed". You can find a place where something like this could happen in RL on the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea.

 

[Dominus Romae]

I don't understand why we should approve such an ammendment: why keep a city for only a turn? So we can have the responsibility of killing the citizens after looking inocent when capturing it? That would be a crime. Better to raze it instantly after we take it.

 

[Furiey]

I think that we should be able to capture cities by any means and then decide whether to raze or keep them as we choose (keep if they are the one city we want, raze if they are not). The law as it stands prevents us capturing cities as part of peace deals and by culture flips, forcing us to use conquest as the only method of capture. As long as we only keep one city (ie: past the end of the turn) we should be able to capture cities by all the means the game allows. This amendment allows us to do that.

 

[DaveShack]

OK, so obviously some people like the idea of taking cities in peace or via culture flip, but find the idea of immediately razing them as too barbaric for a great nation such as ourselves. I actually agree with that second point, so...

Here's another discussion thread.

 

[Nobody]

i vote yes, it always adds the intresting aspect of taking a city and handing it over to another civ.

 

[Bootstoots]

This amendment poll has closed with a final vote tally of 7 in favor, 11 opposed, and 2 abstentions, for a percentage in favor of 39% (rounded). It required 67% to pass; therefore, this amendment has been defeated.