Should we settle here?

Should we settle here?

  • Yes

    Votes: 22 61.1%
  • No

    Votes: 11 30.6%
  • Abstain (who would abstain? ;))

    Votes: 3 8.3%

  • Total voters
    36
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well in that case I say to move northwards. After all, we need to be size 3 before we can start releasing settlers so we'll need the grassland to grow quicker. If the worker uncovers the tile to see if there is indeed furs to the north (as Chieftess believes) then that would also make sense. :)
 
The reason I like where we are is access to the game bonus square from turn 1.
 
Originally posted by Chieftess
Our citizens wanted the poll during and just after the chat.

Some, not all, of those at the darn turn chat wanted it right away. Some people can't seem to remember that there are other citizens out there!
 
What about the following proposal:
We put up an instruction like this:
"if we discover a bonus research of the type
  • then we settle 1 north. If not we settle where we are. The worker is sent north first to reveal the tile."
    The
    • is what we have to define then.


      Or maybe we get a quick approval for a nightly short-chat (or offline version) tonite moving the worker north.
 
I agree with those who said placing it where it is.It's on a lake,has luxury,mountains,plains,...
BTW,are we sure there is an Ocean in the North and not just another bigger lake?
Every time I still move my settler in the first turns,something bad happens.
 
Just a question. If going to the North one square revealed a game square (for example), what would we gain from being where we are now?

However, I like dis' proposals. I wish we could move the worker once and then decide if this is what we want.
 
Originally posted by chiefpaco
Just a question. If going to the North one square revealed a game square (for example), what would we gain from being where we are now?

However, I like dis' proposals. I wish we could move the worker once and then decide if this is what we want.

The sole reason for going north is to have a coastal city.

Let's move down south where it is warmer.
 
Sorry about this, but a long-time Civ 2 player is having trouble getting my head around this. It's the irrigation question again I'm afraid. Thanks to (bloody) Ek for the explanation before, but I just want to make certain of this.
The rubbish graphic below is made with keyboard characters only so please bear with me. :)

G_O_M_M
G_G_L_F
G_S_F_M
G_G_F_H

So if we put the city on the bold grassland which is next to the fresh water supply, we can irrigate the grassland on the other side which only borders the ocean to the north. (Not irrigable until Electricity as I understand :eek:).
 
Originally posted by duke o' york
Thanks to (bloody) Ek for the explanation before
"Bloody"?!?

What've I done now? :confused: :crazyeye:
 
Even if we couldn't irrigate through the city we could chop down the forest next to the lake and start the irrigation there.
 
i vote we not move the settler.
plant the town and move the worker to the shielded grassland to start a road. once we get our first warrior we can sweep the mountains. If we move the settler north to the coast we lose some of the culture range to the sea.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom