Epidemic vs. Crows

It takes a big and magnanimous dwarf to move beyond stubbornness and accept the will of others. Congrats Epi and Crows on the outcome.... but if I'd realised that copious amounts of beer were involved, I would've joined the party 

Angrim wrote: the first i heard of it outside of the game mechanic was from H?, though whether or not they were drunk at the time of the forum post, i couldn't say.  (i'll wager that H? is equally dangerous drunk or sober, so i'm not sure the question is material.)

When we first adopted the policy (and I do believe we were first to do so though I could be mistaken), we took into consideration the typical amount of space needed for a fully-developed city under the game mechanics as they were at the time, and added some breathing room for creative developmental approaches and/or reasonable predictions on future expansions enabled by the feature creep.  Then we rounded a little further to a nice round number which also increased the odds of retaining a little neutral ground--or at least preventing 2 cities exercising competent economics from wanting the same overly-distant tile regardless of typical unique values.  Finally, the rule itself we tempered with good-neighborly sensibility by making it an "ask first" policy rather than a blanket hold on territory.

When you sell a city's potential short, you can't just start up another one and keep expanding your empire.  It's either settle for what you've got and fall permanently behind the curve, go through the agony of relocation (possibly for your whole account) all over again, and/or fight with good neighbors over borderline territory of increasing value and importance.

To us, it just made good sense for everyone involved that we use a standard which promises to satisfy long-term needs.  Based on developments so far, 8 squares might have been sufficient to date--but just barely, and things can still change.  I bet many like me are very happy to still have a little room to grow without becoming bad neighbors.

The usefulness of an area cannot be determined by simple rules, so I don't work by the rule. Instead I evaluate each case, and tell others to do the same. This takes into account other players' preferences, and opens dialogue where there is doubt.

I would regard a clear sovereign territory of 2.3 radius to be a basic 'entitlement', which implies a 5 square separation from others. Any further out, the individual squares' bonuses need to be considered: there might be no squares within 10 radius that are of use, and indeed there might be some as far as 30 out that are economically useful... but we can't make a general rule to cover those cases, so I regard player-declared settlement rules as guidance only.

Elmindra wrote: The most efficient sov layout is only 2.3 sqrs away, therefore either you suck at city placement or you don't really understand the math involved if you are using sov structures greater than 3-4 sqrs away.

Even with a chancery, you are limited to 20 sov structures.  Since you will be paying full price for levels past 1, it is still best to claim as close as possible to get the most out of your rp.  In your above example, I would consider dipping into my reserves for the extra 6-9% per sqr for a bit.  But you will lose time claiming that sov to level 2-3 while you already have closer sov at that level in which to utilize.