Settler Redirect

Do you approve of the Settler Redirect?

  • YES

    Votes: 7 63.6%
  • NO

    Votes: 4 36.4%
  • ABSTAIN

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    11
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

Cyc

Looking for the door...
Joined
Mar 18, 2002
Messages
14,736
Location
Behind you
This is a quick poll to see if you approve of the Settler rediorect laid out in this information thread. . Again the general information is in this map below:
SetRedir1.gif


Please vote YES, NO, or ABSTAIN above.

This is a quick poll and will remain open until the begining of the t/c tomorrow.
 
I would vote no since the sites would not utalize the bonus and lux resources to its full potential. We can get extra gold by setteling near land tiles with lux and Gold with in the City's borders.
Site A should be moved more closer to the Mountan with the gold on it. Site B should be moved up closer to the Gold on the mountan while having the incence in its borders. Stie C should be near the Dyes.
 
Too bad you people didn't read the information thread. I can see I should have laid this out step by step for you people Jeez. The Incense city is more North to capture the gold as determined by a poll. REMEMBER back that far? A is the former AZTEC Capital! it will not be moved!. C is the Dye city and will be placed appropriately to capture as much Dye as possible. There can you find something wrong with THAT?

Stuck had you been wrong in the informational thread, I would have corrected you, just like you asked.
 
But you were what? Wrong? Read what I typed. If you were wrong....(we'll do it slowly)....I would have corrected you, liked you asked.

The information thread showed no dissent towards the Settler redirect. Now the NAYS are winning. Where's my drink....
 
City site C is in immediate danger of being taken by the Indians/Aztecs. City site B is not. Let us take Site C first before we settle B. (Translation: Vote Yes!) :D
 
I agree with Veera. Site C is alot more likely to be taken than site B.
 
I would like to propose one little ammendment to this plan.

Not only should we move the settler in Eklektochtitlan to the dyes, but we should also order the next settler produced in Eklektochtitlan to a location somewhere between Eklektochtitlan and that new "dye" city.

Dacula is currently six turns away from rioting and can produce a settler immediately with no loss of shields if we switch production this turn. Dacula currently has 1 Happy, 2 Content, and 1 Unhappy citizens. It will grow in six turns, which will undoubtedly result in rioting.

A settler will prevent this and allow us to add three new cities in this region within the next 10 turns or so.
 
That might work 40J if we put "C" 1 tile SW of the top 2 Dyes and then the next city 1 tile SW and 1 tile South of the gold to the north of Dye city. Problem with that is we already approved a poll which stated we would go for the Incense. At this time I'm not sure what Dacula is building (I can check in a bit), but we'd have to get that changed also. The Incense will quell the rioting in Dacula and calm the Nation as a whole, in 5 turns. If you were able to get Dacula changed to a settler, then maybe IT could go South towards the Dye city. Whadda ya think?
 
I would agree with 40J's Plan :).
 
Well, then you'd have to start another quick poll to make the change or amendment. We can't change this as votes have already been cast.
 
Bump. Please vote people.
 
Oh, maaaan! I'm starting to become a "bump-monger".
 
Had the poll still been open (due to a forum outage), I would have voted no. Put it 1 tile to the NE.
 
I couldn't get to the polls either due to the forums being down.

I would have voted YES.
 
Maybe we can ask the Mods to open this poll back up because of the forum outage. It was beyond our control...
 
tis too late now, it was already placed, even though i gave instructions to not to place it at the incense hills
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom