Green city!

[Aeson]

This would have each of us currently getting $75 no matter what.

No. That .25 from my vote for 100% shields would still be split between everyone who has shields. If you all voted for say, food 100% (for simplicity's sake), then the other .75 would be split between you 3 equally. I would end up with 1/12, you and Johnny with 1/3, and Makahula with 1/4 in that case.

[TORARADICAL]

Well here is the new chart, according to not counting commerce that is not being used to gain money in the amoont of money a city has to spend..

Using Aeson's formula, if I understand it correctly: Aeson-$8.33; Jonny and I-$33.33; and Makahlua-$25.

[Aeson]

It would depend on what you guys wanted to vote for. All food was just a hypothetical. T & M would be best to vote for all Commerce (half each), while Jonny could vote for shields and/or food equally (he has 1/3 of each).

To illustrate the additional 'fun' this could bring to the table...

Jonny's position is a good example. I would want him to put more into shields instead of food. It's the same either way to him. Makahula would want him to put more into food instead of shields. So some bargaining could be done.

Or I could have my vote swayed to Commerce. It's worth $8.33 to me to vote 100% Shields, but it would be worth $12.50 for Makahula and $3.92 to TORARADICAL if I voted 100% Commerce. So if between Makahula and TORARADICAL they came up with incentive more than $8.33 I might be swayed. Jonny would want me not to switch (it's worth $8.33 to him if I don't), so there could be some bargaining power.

It would add another facet to the game, and could be really interesting.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Dang, do the sparse population in your town your going be cranking in the moola compared to the rest of us.

[Aeson]

Yah... till the other 9 show up and decide they all want part of the action (and excluding me in any case... ). Or until about 3 turns later when your cities double our population (and thus your income)... and continue growing at 2x the speed for the rest of the game. Nobody in their right mind would want to be in Green city! (which is why we're here )

Also, is the bidding for tiles/units really going to be closed to those not represented in the city? This could get real ugly. I'd hate to see the game decided by where you start... seeing as everyone got their tile for free. I really think we should go with a freer market approach, otherwise I think this game will die pretty fast as people start to realize that a 'mistake' (even if that was just picking the best tile available) early has excluded them from winning the game. As we progress, it will get worse and worse. The 8 in the 'good' Settler will be there because they got in the 'good' tiles at the start and so could bid more... ect. ect. ect.

[Aeson]

I think we should change the name of our city to:

The Asylum
Leper Colony (GF is good with names... this not part of the name though, unless you guys want it to be)
Crazy Larry's Firearm Emporium (update the weapon by tech level... Axe.. Spear.. Javelin.. Sword.. ect.. keep the turn player on their toes!)

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

No one can keep anyone from bidding on government owned tiles. What they were talking about was the initial 8 tiles for the Settlers and Units the city builds.

But, by not opening it up to everyone it limits the money the unit auctions bring it.

[Aeson]

Ok. It will end all interest I have in building a military camp to help provide military for the other cities. We'll have to build Settlers just like everyone else to compete, or keep all our military for ourselves and go conquering. No other way to get into newly founded cities.

I don't think we should be doing this. It's a bad idea. I can only see problems arising from it.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

I thought we were working a deal to trade Settlers/Workers for military units. Besides at eight tiles that still leaves 12 from each Settler that the government auctions off.

[Aeson]

It's not going to work.

The drive to keep outsiders out of the auctions will show up to keep them out of the 'good' Settlers through trading too. We'd be able to trade for a Settler eventually maybe... but not until those in your cities have already gotten into a Settler or two themselves. Only when there isn't a good spot to put a new city will you trade.

That's why there's the push for closing the auctions in the first place. To guarantee that the players in city X get into the Settlers from city X. The thinking being that you get the good tiles that way. Well, there are 3 cities that would be forced to compete for those tiles by building Settlers. Not building Settlers just guarantees you miss out. Why build a Temple or Library to expand borders when you can build a Settler and claim those tiles with another city, bypassing the auctioning completely?

Closing the auctions will force each city to expand on it's own.

[TORARADICAL]

As far as name we had already decided upon Green City.
If we are to change our way of making money pert each session then let us start with Equal Split. If we are to keep with the same one then Equal Price.
The settler should finish its current project as it will be done next turn, then build roads through the tiles we four own, then mines in them, and then start with the other squares.
This is my final word on these.

[Aeson]

"We" had decided on a name how/when?

[Makahlua]

Green city kind of unofficially, I'm liking the asylum better myself

[TORARADICAL]

Jonny, they are waiting for our city's orders. If you don't have them up in the "Turn Session 4" thred by 0:00 MST, Monday-Tuesday, I will put them up myself. I will not be relenquishing power afterwards though.

[Jonny]

I'm working on the orders right now.

First, however, I'd like to put forward several proposals concerning the city to be decided on by the populace voting. Vote either yea or nay. Simple majority determines the outcomes of these proposals... as the city leader I reserve the right to break any ties with the city's interest in mind.


PROPOSAL 1. Anti-pillaging law. Passed 4-0
a) The pillaging of any tile improvement within the boundaries of our City is forbidden.
b) If any lord pillages any tile improvement within the boundaries of our City, the armed forces under the control of the city and those under the control of any landowners holding land within our City's boundary shall be obligated to help pillage and destroy the tiles and possessions of the offending player.
c) If our City leader pillages a tile within our City's radius, he/she shall be forced to immediately resign from his office, in addition to sufferring the punishment in section (b).

Votes For
Jonny
TORARADICAL
Aeson
Makahlua

Votes Against


PROPOSAL 2. Implementation of Aeson's Resource Pricing idea. Passed 3-1
a) To determine the market price of the goods sold in our city, we will use Aeson's Resource Pricing proposal (described earlier in this thread and at http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=118566), under which each landholder in our City has one vote on how to split the city's funds between food, shields, and commerce.
b) Even if a landholder has multiple tiles within our city, he/she still only recieves one vote.
c) This system would replace the Equal Split/Equal Price voting system.
d) Votes would be privately sent (via PM) to the City Leader, but revealed upon the announcement of the prices, to prevent the city leader from changing the numbers to benefit him/herself.
e) A new vote is held before every new market session.

Votes For
Jonny
Aeson
Makahlua

Votes Against
TORARADICAL

PROPOSAL 3. Renaming of city. Passed 3-1
a) The name of our city shall be changed to The Asylum, as several landholders have expressed interest in this name for our city.

Votes For
Jonny
Aeson
Makahlua

Votes Against
TORARADICAL

...


I voted yes for all three proposals.