Turn 113, 310 BC

[Harovan]

Whoever plays the turn (duh!) please note the two "urgent messages" in the Vox diplo thread before opening the turn.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=2095433#post2095433

[DeepO]

Further, just a repetition: I'm not certain, but if our GA ends at the end of this turn, we probably should set lux to 20%, to avoid disorder in a few cities next turn.

DeepO

[Arrian]

I guess the big question is do we think we have a "settlement in principle" with Vox, and therefore cease hostilities this turn?

I've stated that though I don't really want to, I don't see an alternative to accepting a Voxexodus, and negotiating the best deal we can get, because Lego has committed to saving them via city-gifting. Continuing to fight now means we won't get free tech from them and whatnot, but they will still survive (unless we're willing to hunt them down, which will take a while, tie up our navy, and be generally unpleasant for relations with Legoland).

So peace - because I feel we have no choice. I will remember Legoland's part in this.

A reminder that Vox apparently made yet another "mistake" and gifted us Dissidentville, but now are asking us to reject it for now Man, they're disorganized.

-Arrian

[Shiber]

Beta knew that he was not supposed to offer this, he just made a silly mistake.
Btw, I understand that he replayed Vox's turn without sending forth the in-game proposal and sent it to Lego.

[notyoueither]

s'OK, we don't want D'ville as a gift anyway. If we disband it after, the unhappiness will jump to Monsoon. Yes?

Better to occupy and raze it. Yes?

Anyone know the mechanics of unhappiness jumping better than I?

[Arrian]

I think we'd rather capture/autoraze it, yeah. I want to move it anyway.

Shiber, good

-Arrian

[nbarclay]

What we really want is for Vox to abandon it so the unhappiness stays with them, I think.

[notyoueither]

Nathan, can the unhappiness jump to one of our cities? I've always wondered about that.

[nbarclay]

When you capture a city, you inherit its unhappiness due to pop rushing or drafting. So unless Firaxis built special code into their "transfer unhappiness when a city is disbanded" routine, it would just be a normal, routine transfer of unhappiness from one of our cities to another. I won't guarantee that Firaxis didn't write in something special for such situations, but I seriously doubt it.

Actually, come to think of it, the best thing for all concerned would probably be if we'd raze the city (and, presumably, its unhappiness with it). The same might go for all of Vox's other cities except the one they use for the teleport (which they, and we in helping them with their planning, probably need to avoid pop-rushing in).

[notyoueither]

That's what I'm thinking. Except, there are likely some in the North that have not been whipped. They would make good settler sorces to move cities to suit our own ideas of a good grid.

[DeepO]

Is unhappiness really worth it to lose pop on? I doubt it, in the long run. Each size 1 city we abandon, raze, or not get gifted means one extra settler we need to build. 2 pop points means ~4 commerce in most of our harbor cities, for the entirety of the game. So, those 20 possible unhappiness turns are well worth it, unless I'm seriously mistaken.

The only solution is that we gain slaves for each city we lose, as that would mean a constant 0.5 gpt gain, while we keep half our pop ability (so we only lose 2 commerce per turn, instead of 4). Otherwise I would never disband, or raze cities! Don't forget, population is the only resource in Civ, all the rest (shields, commerce, resources, military) is a direct consequence of pop. If that pop is unhappy, it won't produce much a couple of turns, but after that it is an extra we don't want to lose...

Because conquering is not the best option, I think we should either get the cities, and keep them (besides, is D-ville so badly positioned?), or demand slaves for each city Vox disbands. If we want to give Vox a reasonable start, they will need the population, but so do we, so let's not squander them, there's already so few of them in former Voxian land.

DeepO

[Aeson]

Unhappiness isn't going to be much of a deal if we have 2 more luxuries from RP, 1 from GoW, and 1 from ND.

Probably an unhappiness jump would end up in Inchon, Elipolis, or Monsoon... Arashi is also a possibility. I've seen some weird unhappiness jumps to core cities though, so it's not certain. I'd much rather keep the unhappiness in the newly aquired city, as a few luxuries will make it usable. In a core city (or even Arashi) we might have to raise the luxury slider to deal with the same unhappiness.

So while I don't really care to keep Dissidentville or wherever, it's better than abandoning any cities. Razing cities isn't of much value, as we'll eventually end up with the unhappiness somewhere.

I think we should try to give Vox the best start possible, and ask to split the difference so to speak. Maybe we can keep all their cities at size 1 if they feel we are helping them get better value out of it than they could themselves. Having their cities intact will really help the rebuilding process, even if all they build is a Worker each 10 turns.

[notyoueither]

OK. That works, just D'ville is likely to have to sit a good long while before unhappiness goes away. It is 20 turns for each whip, right? Consecutive sentences, not concurrent, right?

[alva]

Yep, that's how I understand it.

BTW, did we ask/demand that any improvement build is not to be sold off?

[notyoueither]

Will add that to the list, alva.