Is settling on a coast with no resources in the sea hexes bad?

Settling on a coast with no resources in the sea. NO fish, clams, whale, nothing. In Civ 5 it is one of the worst spots to settle a city, same for civ 4?

One of those "it depends". I generally favor moving inland to create an inland cap for land-based improvement. The most important thing is a good city and good spot. It's also dependent on map. If GLH is a good option in your scenario then settling coast regardless may be beneficial, but if possible I my move to a spot that is coastal but more land tiles anyway - as long as I don't give up resources.

And actually, I don't think that I necessarily true about 5 as trade ships are more valuable than caravans. Food transports by sea are quite strong. Granted if you will be settling other cities or capturing them on the coast. Probably map dependent as well. (I feel so dirty knowing this)

Don't worry lymond...the first step in recovery is admitting you have a problem, and a lot of people have a little Civ5 in their closets.

Yes it is bad. However if there are several land resources nearby, it may still be worth it. Also it may be worth it if you can build Moai Statues in that city, but that only works for one city (because national wonders can only be built in a single city that you own.)

So tl;dr: 90% of the time it is better not to.

There are only three scenarios that I can think of where it's worth it. The first is when you have GLH, and coastal cities (especially off continent) are great even at size one without buildings.

The second is if there is a key resource that you can't find anywhere else that you need like iron, horses, or marble. The city itself will be bad, but the resource may be better than the cost of the city. This one is a big maybe, as it's kind of rare that you REALLY need a resource, and you should delay building the city until you need to claim that resource.

The last is a very late game scenario with corporations, where the lack of food becomes irrelevant because of corporations, and the city becomes useful by virtue of being a city that can turn population into commerce.

Of course, a coastal city that has access to a land based food resource is perfectly fine, but without GLH you are usually better bringing the city inland to have more useful tiles to work. Often times the city that you end up building the GLH doesn't have any seafood resources, since you usually prioritize forests and hills to work instead of seafood (the other way around isn't true, it's perfectly fine to build the GLH in a city with seafood).

Sometimes the best city spot for land resources happens to be the coast (especially when considering you have other cities settled nearby). If there were a few tiles which each capture a land resource and one of them happens to be the coast I would prefer the coast if no other advantages to the other options.

There are situations where it is a good idea, however it generally isn't a great location so you should have a clear reason for it. As any other city settle I suppose.

If it's so bad to settle on the coast, why does the blue circle always seem to prioritize coastal squares regardless. .

xcrissxcrossx said:

Yes it is bad. However if there are several land resources nearby, it may still be worth it. Also it may be worth it if you can build Moai Statues in that city, but that only works for one city (because national wonders can only be built in a single city that you own.)

So tl;dr: 90% of the time it is better not to.

Click to expand...

What he said. It's better than desert without special resources. It helps to be Carthage, or Portugal. It also helps to build the The Great Light House and The Colossus. It's also handy in a huge/ diety / raging barbs scenario, because your roads can't be pillaged.

With FIN leader and controling GLH - 99% yes. Also ORG can done Lighthouse fast and atleast make city as backup city for some extra curaiser + some extra % land towards Domination or extra pop for Diplo... And you don't need fog bust too anymore..
With just 2 commerce coast + "just" 2 trade routes (with Currency) - better to go attack neighbour with 3 extra units..

The rationale for settling on Coast is the same as the rationale for settling anywhere: Are there good tiles to work?
(The only exception to this is having the Great Lighthouse, or if you literally don’t have any coastal cities and need access to the ocean to build ships and/or trade with other continents)

Coast tiles, on their own, are not good tiles. So – Moai isn’t really a good idea because you won’t want to work Coast or Ocean on a regular basis, unless there are resources or Lighthoused lakes (3F tiles with Moai are pretty good).

6K Man said:

The rationale for settling on Coast is the same as the rationale for settling anywhere: Are there good tiles to work?
(The only exception to this is having the Great Lighthouse, or if you literally don’t have any coastal cities and need access to the ocean to build ships and/or trade with other continents)

Coast tiles, on their own, are not good tiles. So – Moai isn’t really a good idea because you won’t want to work Coast or Ocean on a regular basis, unless there are resources or Lighthoused lakes (3F tiles with Moai are pretty good).

Click to expand...

Pretty much this. Also note that if you are stuffing an area as full of cities as possible (quite reasonable, especially if you are somewhat boxed in), coastal cities at least have the possibility of building a lighthouse and working some ocean tiles, if your cities grow in the late game. It also allows you to stuff more cities in a piece of land.
Another potential 'trick' is being on the coast but having fresh lake tiles also. This allows you to build a lighthouse for 3 food water tiles, which are fine.

Not settling on the coast is a very bad rule of thumb, imo. There are no intrinsic reasons not to do so. Having access to less good tiles to work is a reason, and that becomes more likely should you settle on the coast, but that has less to do with the coast but more with general settlement pro's and con's: can you use those tiles with another city? Will another civ claim these tiles? Will this city be productive? Can you afford two cities maintenance/hammer wise? Etc.
To the settling on the coast an sich there are only pro's.

As long as there are enough good land tiles to work in the early game when your population is limited I think they are fine. When you get enough happiness to run out of good land tiles the coast tiles will at least be something. The city may not be one of your really great cities in the end game, but it won't be as clunky as some others might be.

FIN trait makes the coastal squares much stronger.

It also depends on how many quality land tiles there are near the spot you would settle on the coast. Is there access to fresh water for Irrigation through Civil Service to increase food production? Are there enough tiles for production? If it is mostly tundra, desert, and plains, it is probably not worth it.

There's also the fact on whether you have other sites for coastal cities--it may very well be the case that you need a port city desperately, such that a bad city is better than no city.