Poll and Imperial Expansion Discussion

atomant · November 8, 2002, 11:23

Citizens....

A question must be asked. As I understand my portfolio, I am responsible for exploration (boldly going where no one has gone before) and selecting sites for future cities. Obviously there are some overlaps here with other departments.

The question that must be asked of you loyal citizens is are we satsfied with the number of cities we presently have (note I said number, not size)? If no, by what factor should we expand our cities.

My predecessor polled and voted that two further locations previous minister report. But to refresh, we voted that two further cities be created (whale island and the 'Panama' Bottleneck city.

I have attached a map of the world from the Pres's report which highlights where our present cities are (obviously).

It goes without saying that additional polls over the next day or two will determine goals for exploration (in regards to finding suitable sites for cities) etc etc

You have the usual three days to vote,

Remember the future of our civilisation rests in your capable hands. And if you believe that, I have a deal for you.

cavebear · November 8, 2002, 11:45

30% more cities would be 6 or 7. We should expect to find some locations of strategic value (places like Panama City that would serve as shortcuts through landmasses) or locations with unusually good resources, which the Minister of Imperial Expansion would, of course, identify for polling.

So, lets not go overboard on new cities just anywhere we can build them, but let's not limit ourselves too severely, either!

Earwicker · November 8, 2002, 17:02

At this point, devoting 1/3 of our cities to new settler production wouldn't hurt too bad if we can hope for good return on those new cities.

As far as the timing of the founding of new cities: Isn't it likely that whatever new bases are built in distant lands would suffer badly from corruption? I agree that our civilization will benefit from the new blood of expansion but it would seem better to wait until we were a democracy. If democracy is an upcoming discovery, then by all means let's get some settlers built and on their way in time to exploit that new government!

cavebear · November 8, 2002, 18:51

I meant that new cities should be reserved for unusual situations of strategic or resource value. I do not support just "regular" cities.

BruceTheStupid · November 8, 2002, 19:46

If Democracy is coming up within the next dozen turns, get settlers built and onto the ships right away, that way you can have the ships travelling under Republic without causing discontent, but more or less when they land your new cities will be straight into democracy without the losses from corruption, and you can disband your ships to aid production.

This is the best expansion opportunity until you have built factories and can knock out Settlers every few turns and send them out on transports (however by that time only the biggest resource producers contribute to your spaceship.

I agree with atomant that geographically advantageous sites need to be taken up, for the rest focus on availability of shields.

atomant · November 9, 2002, 05:06

A second part of this discussion should be the general vacinity of any proposed new cities. As we are in defensive mode should we utilise our existing terrain or place cities on our enemies or in undiscovered regions.

I suggest that to maximise defensive capabilities we use land on our existing islands/continents where possible.

BruceTheStupid · November 9, 2002, 15:53

If we were going for conquest

I'd say get in on their continents. Even in this case, the best defence is offense, so I would always try and get 2 cities in each opponent's backyard (1 spare in case 1 captured).

Some further thoughts.........Is the objective to be certainof winning by building the 1st successful spaceship, or to take more risks and just try to build a spaceship as speedily as possible? If we want certainty, get cities on their continents and use spoiling tactics to keep them occuopied. If we want speed, focus resources on building in our own areas.

cavebear · November 9, 2002, 17:44

Quote:

Originally posted by BruceTheStupid
If Democracy is coming up within the next dozen turns, get settlers built and onto the ships right away, that way you can have the ships travelling under Republic without causing discontent, but more or less when they land your new cities will be straight into democracy without the losses from corruption, and you can disband your ships to aid production.

This is the best expansion opportunity until you have built factories and can knock out Settlers every few turns and send them out on transports (however by that time only the biggest resource producers contribute to your spaceship.

I agree with atomant that geographically advantageous sites need to be taken up, for the rest focus on availability of shields.

A good tactical move! More proof that "Bruce the Stupid" isn't what his handle suggest.

Mike's Chapel will prevent new cities from unhappiness, and the new cities, with their democratic production, will contribute to the overall trade/research of our civ.

atomant · November 10, 2002, 10:34

So to summarise 1/4 of the population want 20% more cities and the other 1/4 want more then they can count. Can we settle at say 30% to keep every one happy?

I think we voted last game play to adopt a non aggressive stance(?) therefore, the cities should not be located on enemiy continents.

Comments if I am in error welcome as this post will make the basis of the presidential report.

Cheers

cavebear · November 10, 2002, 11:07

30% appears to be the average choice, and the number is a general target rather than a precise demand anyway. So that sounds good.

About our military stance... Not to split hairs, but I think there is a difference between "non-aggressive" and "defensive". We have chosen not to take the offense and attack our neighbors, but that doesn't mean we can't build some cities that strategically hamper the other civs' expansion or mobility. Panama City, for example was deliberately placed to limit Japanese settlement on a large unoccupied area but also to allow our ships to get through a large landmass efficiently. We wouldn't build within another civ's borders, but we can discourage them at the edges.

shade · November 10, 2002, 18:52

Quote:

Originally posted by cavebear
About our military stance... Not to split hairs, but ....

who's in charge of them???

do we leave our army decapitated at the moment it is upgraded and just needs maintenance to stay like this.

Shade

cavebear · November 10, 2002, 19:42

I think a resolution to the vacant Minister of War position is up to our new President. Presidents have had to fill vacancies before.

mrboo123 · November 11, 2002, 09:05

I think DinoDoc or DocDino or whatever has it, I'll check.

mrboo123 · November 11, 2002, 09:08

No, its DocDino.

cavebear · November 11, 2002, 11:12

Quote:

Originally posted by 123john321
No, its DocDino.

Why is that? Did I miss an election or an appointment by the President?

atawa · November 11, 2002, 11:52

No, he is the only one sofar to express an interest in the job.

If there are no other candidates I suggest we give it to him

DinoDoc · November 11, 2002, 12:12

Quote:

Originally posted by 123john321
No, its DocDino.

No, it isn't.

Just fill me in on the responsibilities of the job and I'd be happy to take it if you want.

H Tower · November 11, 2002, 12:20

you get to advocate warlike plans if you feel they are justified, your responsible for the making sure that are units are at least close to being modern, and if the AI takes one of our cities, your the one who is responsible. Well, thats how I look at it anyways

atawa · November 11, 2002, 12:38

Quote:

Originally posted by H Tower
and if the AI takes one of our cities, your the one who is responsible.

What he means is:

cavebear · November 11, 2002, 15:13

First of all, I mean no offense whatever to DinoDoc, who may be a skilled player and perfect for the job. Or not, as I know nothing about him, good or bad. Far be it from me to discourage any Citizen, new or old, from volunteering for higher office and public service

Second, doesn't the President usually fill vacancies, or we at least get to vote on candidates?

I am asking about this only because the President is supposed to implement the recommendations of the Ministers, and I have no sense of DinoDoc's knowledge of our gameplan or what he might recommend. Plus, I don't want us to step on Presidential toes.

If President Hydey would express his opinion on this subject, it would be helpful (and something more illuminative than "f*ck off" would be everlastingly appreciated).

But if President Hydey does not deal with the Minister of War vacancy, then I hope the VP will post an election poll to settle the matter.

Do we *have* a VP? Darkess's Edge retired from politics. Does that make ixnay the VP? Or does President Hydey choose someone?

The administration of the game seems to be a bit "unsettled" at the moment.

DinoDoc · November 11, 2002, 15:19

Quote:

Originally posted by cavebear
Second, doesn't the President usually fill vacancies, or we at least get to vote on candidates?

Sorry, I didn't know. I just heard that the position was vacant and offered my name for consideration not knowing how people were chosen around here.

Quote:

I have no sense of DinoDoc's knowledge of our gameplan

It's limited at best. Hence the questions about what you expected a War minister to do since we are going for a non-aggressive victory.

cavebear · November 11, 2002, 16:10

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Sorry, I didn't know. I just heard that the position was vacant and offered my name for consideration not knowing how people were chosen around here.

No problem, I heartily welcome your willingness to serve, and I am glad you have joined our game. I'm just asking the question in general terms and your offer happens to be an example of a specific question we really should resolve.

We tend to reslove questions as they arise, rather than trying to have a detailed set of rules ahead of time. Personally, I enjoy the discussion when these questions arise.

Quote:

I have no sense of DinoDoc's knowledge of our gameplan

Quote:

It's limited at best. Hence the questions about what you expected a War minister to do since we are going for a non-aggressive victory.

It's not personal.

We actually encourage new people to become Ministers after posting and seeing how the game works. My concern is for letting the President have the rights the position has had in the past and I don't want to seem to be taking things away that the President has done in the past.

atawa · November 11, 2002, 16:25

Is Hydey sober enough to decide this?

Looking at hist posts lately I would say we've elected a second Boris Jeltsin

cavebear · November 11, 2002, 17:17

Quote:

Originally posted by atawa
Is Hydey sober enough to decide this?

Looking at hist posts lately I would say we've elected a second Boris Jeltsin

I agree. President Hydey's comments so far have varied between nasty and bizarre.

Hydey · November 11, 2002, 17:33

Quote:

Originally posted by cavebear

I agree. President Hydey's comments so far have varied between nasty and bizarre.

You aint seen nothing yet.

I would have no problem of Dinodoc as SMC

As for VP, I would hope Darkness'edge would reconsider and fill that roll but if not perhaps Ixnay could help us out.

-Jrabbit · November 11, 2002, 18:40

Clearly and succinctly stated, Hydey.

Hoping your RL allows a game session soon.

H Tower · November 11, 2002, 19:25

what -JRabbit said. what happened to the Hydey I know who played a turn every three days?

DinoDoc · November 12, 2002, 11:15

Check your PM's HTower.

H Tower · November 12, 2002, 13:54

the only time i ever see someone say that to me its either Ming, MarkG or rah

Hydey · November 12, 2002, 17:33

Quote:

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
Clearly and succinctly stated, Hydey.

Hoping your RL allows a game session soon.

I plan to be playing tonight, only recieved the report from our city planner this morning, a very fine and detailed report I must say.