Where to settle our 2nd city?

[DaveShack]

Citizens of, umm, what's our national identity?

Anyway, where shall we send our next brave band of settlers? Discussion has focused on this map, now it is time to choose a location.



Should we pick the obvious green dot location? If so, which one? Or be daring and go into the jungle? Your friends and family are packing their bags, so you decide where to send them.

Discussion is here

This poll will remain open for 24 hours or until the next turnchat, whichever comes first.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

The Green dot to the south crowds our capital the least and therefore gets my vote.

I would still prefer more information, however.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

I voted abstain. I think we should be building another warrior to replace dear departed Chuck before we build that settler.

We just don't know a lot about this dangerous world of ours, except that the Bulgars are not on our Christmas card list.

 

[Sharkey]

The green dot to the south. It is farther from our capital and gives us more new terrain to look at.

 

[Rik Meleet]

Our second city site should be our 20k city. It's location is essential. We unfortunately don't know enough to make the decision.
Abstain it is.

 

[donsig]

I abstained. I applaud the discussion taking place but it's too early to poll this one. We need to see some more of the world before making this decision!

 

[TerminalMan90]

I also abstain. I like all the arguments about getting more information (except Bills, because we could choose a site before we got our warrior).

I assume the 20k site should be second so it has the longest time to grow and does not have a palace.

On the other hand, the longer we delay, the more time our competition has to build units and competing cities.

Edit: Oh. I see, we also need time to accumulate culture too.

 

[Cyc]

I have voted ABSTAIN as well. We need more information about our region before commiting ourselves in this fashion. If I had President Rik's gun to my head (see original discussion), I would say the Eastern-most "4". It has the coastline, a cow, a river within its city borders, and is three tiles away from the Capital, which means it would interfere least of all with the Capital's borders. I would have to say this poll is premature.

 

[TerminalMan90]

Hmmm..

Bit of a catch 22 here. Can't poll for the will of the people because they don't have enough information, but can't give instructions on where to build the expansion city until the citizens are polled.

Where does that leave us when we are in the middle of the turn chat with the information we needed for the poll?

Perhaps we really only need a reworded poll that determines the ranking of the current sites, or perhaps the citizen approved priority that Rik can use when putting additional information to use (i.e choosing a site in the turn chat)?

Anyone care to hit this idea with the constitution?

 

[donsig]

Will we have a settler ready in the next ten turns?

 

[Cyc]

Because of our growth rate, it is entirely possible for us to produce a Settler on turn #9 of the next t/c, if it goes that far. This can be delayed of course by laborer locations or we could build a Warrior first. Personally, I wouldn't mind pumping out a Settler in 9 turns and sending them out unprotected to the Eastern-most "4" on DaveShack's map.

Too bad we didn't send the Worker out to those mountains to scout the territory.

 

[zorven]

I voted Abstain - we need more scouting before we can make an informed decision.

 

[Furiey]

Unless our queue is changed we get a settler before 10 turns, so we either leave the settler standing in the city, stop the session early as soon as we build the settler, pick a spot for a city or at least decide the direction, or leave it all up to the President.
I'm still hoping for a queue change.

 

[eyrei]

I also believe it to be too early to make this decision.

 

[Peri]

Unless I misread the poll a city is going to be founded as soon as the setler is built. Surely all those people with concerns should be voting for the 'other' option and not abstain.

 

[DaveShack]

Well, that's pretty clear

Now the IA Ministry has clear citizen input saying we should leave the settler (if one is produced) in place for more discussion, or stop the chat early.

Don't misinterpret the posting of this poll as a desire to rush towards settlement. I definitely want 1 or even 2 more warriors before we send out a band of settlers. It was necessary to run this poll to show a basis for slowing down.

BTW, after growth in 1 turn we get 3spt if the mined BG is worked, and up to 5spt if we mine the other BG before the next growth. If the queue is warrior, settler we would be on the verge of completing the settler on turn 10.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Peri
Unless I misread the poll a city is going to be founded as soon as the setler is built. Surely all those people with concerns should be voting for the 'other' option and not abstain.

Or the powers that be might interpret all these abstentions to mean we should not be producing a settler in the next ten turns...

 

[DaveShack]

Originally posted by donsig

Or the powers that be might interpret all these abstentions to mean we should not be producing a settler in the next ten turns...

Several of us have asked Governor Plexus to produce one or two warriors prior to the settler. This poll lets us have a record of the people's wishes in the matter, and they seem pretty clearly in favor of waiting.

 

[Peri]

Sorry I am not used to all this friendly cooperation. I'll come in again.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Originally posted by Cyc
Because of our growth rate, it is entirely possible for us to produce a Settler on turn #9 of the next t/c, if it goes that far. This can be delayed of course by laborer locations or we could build a Warrior first.

Or we can just stop the chat before Turn 10. Ever since DG3 Term 3, we seem to have this notion that a turnchat is a failure if we do not reach the prescribed ten turns. And since our laws put us at a point of no return once we begin the chat(as was painfully discovered last turn), we should feel the need to stop the chat based on any new information.

Delaying production by adjusting laborer locations just to prolong a chat is a bad idea. It means our nation lives for 50 years with no real progress instead of waiting just three days to play that turn in the most efficient manner.

I am glad to see everyone working with the Governor on this one, though. While it solves the problem for this specific instance, I am not sure communication alone will get us through 10 turns each time out. Time will tell......

Hope I didn't ruin the sunny mood, Peri.