Should we settle here?

[Chieftess]

Citizen Discussion has started here.

(I'll put up a non-gif image. )

This poll will be open for 48 hours (until the next turn chat).

 

[Cyc]

I think it's a great spot. 3/4's of the way up the map is a good location and we have access to what looks like the ocean, mountains, hills, grasslands and forests. Plant that settler!

 

[eyrei]

Hehe. I am abstaining. I don't know if we should settle there or not because we don't know what is on the other side of that mountain next to us. It could be the promised land.

I would like to say lets vote on moving the worker onto the mountain and then reassess, but that would slow the game down too much.

 

[GenMarshall]

I favor setteling where that setteler is at . We dont have to worry about any aquaducts later on .

 

[Shaitan]

That looks like coastline to the north. It's worth a sacrifice of 1 turn of production to plant the capital on a coastline. I say move the settler one tile north.

 

[Shaitan]

Incidentally, isn't this poll a bit premature? We've barely had a chance to discuss the options yet.

 

[Chieftess]

Our citizens wanted the poll during and just after the chat.

 

[Shaitan]

Originally posted by Chieftess
Our citizens wanted the poll during and just after the chat.

What citizens wanted that? I've been trying to hit everything on this forum and I didn't notice any discussion about launching a premature poll...

 

[FionnMcCumhall]

my question is why move the settler? At the difficulty we are at it may cost us in the long run. Most civs (ai) in the game plant a settler as soon as they "appear" and start building their warrior and start their science discoveries. We can always build more cities and deal with optimization later. The capital city doesnt have to be the most productive city, just evnough to produce the necessary sheilds to ensure a new settler and military units. I think building the settler near a body of water is the best way to go. So plant that settler as is

 

[Octavian X]

IMHO, we should go for the grasslands inbetween the lake and coast. This way, the city which will likely be our highest production city until factories come along will be able to build naval units, not to mention the trade and food we can get from them.

 

[Raven1er]

Originally posted by FionnMcCumhall
my question is why move the settler? At the difficulty we are at it may cost us in the long run. Most civs (ai) in the game plant a settler as soon as they "appear" and start building their warrior and start their science discoveries. We can always build more cities and deal with optimization later. The capital city doesnt have to be the most productive city, just evnough to produce the necessary sheilds to ensure a new settler and military units. I think building the settler near a body of water is the best way to go. So plant that settler as is

I agree. you'll waste valuable tech research time if you move.

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by Shaitan

What citizens wanted that? I've been trying to hit everything on this forum and I didn't notice any discussion about launching a premature poll...

I think this is the standard, "we are here, let's keep playing mentality." This is also the reason I don't like turn chats, but that is another matter entirely.

There apparently was some debate during the chat regarding going ahead and settling, as well. Luckily Chieftess decided it was not a good idea.

 

[Cyc]

And thank you for that, CT. I posted my opinion in the expansion and city placement threads in the citizens sub-forum and above.

I think the reason for the poll is because this was game creation and the next chat is two days away. Chieftess wanted to give the people a two-day poll. I really would like to see what's over the mountain to the SE and I would really like to give Shaitan more time to convince me that a move 1 tile North would be beneficial. But I don't think either event would change my mind.

 

[disorganizer]

Maybe a 2 option poll would have been good, as we obviously have 2 options: the move-north and the settle-now one -)

 

[Almightyjosh]

Maybe we loose one turn in settling, but it is a big advantage to be on the coast. We amy be on a small island, and then we would need as many cities a possible on the coast.

I say, move one north and then settle. Putting ourselves a single turn behind will proove less costly than having a capital with no sea access.

 

[BCLG100]

i think its fine there we can cut the forests down later on which will be mined and mountains for increased production and no need for an aqueduct

 

[disorganizer]

well, the forst cutting can also be done from the spot 1 north... also the mining. or maybe for our next city.

 

[duke o' york]

I was going to say that founding here is fine but forgot that, unlike in Civ 2, you can't use the lake to get through to the ocean. So instead, I think we should move north and found on the square between the two bodies of water. This will still keep the deer thing within the eventual radius and mean that we can start to produce ships there. With the production potential of this site then we can have quite a navy! I see that the shield-producing squares are quite numerous and therefore we will still have a lot if we move to the grassland. The worker should move first of course to see what we can get from the other squares but it'll be worth it. What difference does a single turn make at this stage, when your first tech will take 40 turns to research?

Ah - a thought! If we put the city there then will we be able to use the freshwater lake to irrigate through the city or not? If we can't irrigate on the other side of the city (which I think is dumb, because all cities are irrigated automatically) then maybe my spot isn't ideal after all. Can someone advise me on this before I cast my vote please?

 

[Shabbaman]

Does that tile in the north give us an aquaduct? Then, go for it.

 

[Eklektikos]

@duke o' york: Yes, we can irrigate squares on the other side of the city.