Poll and Imperial Expansion Discussion

[atomant]

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]

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]

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]

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

[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.

[atomant]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[mrboo123]

No, its DocDino.

[cavebear]

Originally posted by 123john321
No, its DocDino.

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