Abandon city

Or an option to move a city could be like sending a new settler to a new location. 

 Personally I hope there is never a move city other than the one currently in the game. I would agree to a move city option if your near a faction to keep you from losing it to a NPC.

 Allowing cities to move on a whim even with a penalty is a game ender to me. If you have ever played a game like evony where you go to bed and in the morning 8 enemy cities are encircling yours you would understand why or if your planning on attacking a city to capture it and bam its ported away after you have spent troops and resources on capturing it you can see how it would affect combat and the stratgic aspects of the game.

The abandon city is an idea to consider.

Erik Dirk wrote: At some point we're going to be able to move cities so the feature would eventually become moot, although it would be nice if the GM's would give a general idea of when this would happen say two months either side?

I'd argue that abandon city would be a much more effective mechanism than a move city, for several reasons:

1) A move city (similar to initial transportation of starting city) would be far too easy and make the decision of where you place your cities kind of not a huge issue. It should be a big deal. It should be a strategic decision that there's consequences for.
2) If it's not that easy to move a city (huge magic cost, or require a special rare item or something), then an abandon city feature would still have a place. The advantage being you can give up the city at any time, but lose ALL progress in the city.

+1