Water tiles are horrible

Again, here's something I haven't noticed anyone bring up:

Water is really bad in this game. To see this, compare it to grassland.

On grassland you could build a cottage. After 10 turns, it would be a hamlet. At this point, it would be as good as water with a lighthouse. But it would then develope into a village and then a town, which, with Printing Press and the right Civics, could give you a 7 commerce and one production. Plus, if it was on a river, it would get another commerce.

But it is worse than this, because you don't have to build hamlets on grassland. You have the option to also build farms, workshops, watermills. So they are much more flexible than water.

Don't get me wrong: having a city on the water is nice because you can build a port, build ships and gain benefit from the Great Lighthouse. But, as far as I can tell, better to have as few water tiles as possible.

Something should be done to make water not be so horrible. Perhaps all water tiles could be motified, like land tiles can be, or perhaps there should be more improvements like the lighthouse that improve the output of water tiles. I'm not sure what the solution should be, but there is a problem.

-- The Hypnotoad

Cities by the water tend to be high trade cities. The revenue from trade routes is much higher by the water, and the cities can grow a lot from water while gaining a lot of commerce in the process. The end result is that water cities become an ideal location for a library.

I think cities by the water are powerful enough.

While I do miss the ability to get 1P in addition of food and commerce from water, I do think they are fairly balanced. The main advantages are mentioned in the previous post, but also include how abundant water tiles are...you don't often get a city that has more then 1/2 it's tiles as grassland. That fact alone (waters abundance) menas that coastal cities are almost gauraunteed to be able to go well past 20 in size. But they suck at production!!!

Coastal cities in Civ 4, while not as good as the old fishing villages of Civ 3, are still perfectly viable. Three commerce per square adds up, especially when it is put through all the modifiers, so the city will more than pay for itself. No they're never going to be great a production, but they don't need to build that much and you can often rush things like markets and libraries. I think that water tiles are well balanced as it is, especially given that most civs will have loads of them.

In response to the first reply (dh_eric): cities on the water tend to be high trade because they can build ports, but that only requires a few water tiles. Other than that, you will generate more commerce with towns.

In response to the next reply (Frewfrus): while grassland are somewhat rare, they are clearly superior to water. And plains can be irrigated to produce as much food as ocean tile -- or you can do a different improvement, if you like. Plains are much more flexible, and a mix of plains and grassland would clearly be better than water.

Every additional city increases your maintaince costs. One of the ways I've been easily winning on emperor is by building port cities that have as few water tiles as possible. I'm able to stay on top of the tech race. In my last game I had Future Tech 3 and no other civ had Fusion, Robotics, Ecology...

Really, really, water tiles are to be avoided. They are much worse than other tiles in the game. That's too bad -- they should do more to feed your people and generate commerce.

-- The Hypnotoad

'Water Cities' are great for commerce, but just don't expect a lot of production from them.

The water is for trade and fish/clam/crab, not for tile yeild.

Coastal cities have bigger trade, and are huge if fairly inland and have access to a coastal fish resource for instance.

How many people in the world prefers living on land?.. How many activities in the world are held on land compared to on water?... You could maybe consider that good land tiles are supposed to be better than water tiles. Think it was a nice addition with the fishing boats so you needed to work the water tiles too. With a lighthouse water tiles are great for getting commerce and becomes great cities for income and research. You not being able to build mines on water is not a bug.

I always try to get my second or third city in coast because of trade and the boost to science and finances.

Water tiles are tiles you otherwise wouldn't be working... are you forsaking many grasland tiles forever to nab an extra water tile?

More cities = more tiles worked. If you're short on land, coast+lighthouse is still excelent revenue (especially for financial civs), without requiring *any* worker turns.

Ocean, on the other hand, is very mediocre without colossus. Keep that in mind.

Sure, grassland might be better than water; but so what? Desert tiles aren't so hot either ;p.
As was said already, water tiles aren't that bad. But I think that's beside the point. Not every tile needs to have the same value.

I ain't complaining.

I think the people who've said that there is no reason that the tiles need to all be equally worthwhile have a fair point. Desert and mountain tiles are clearly worth less than others so why not have water tiles worth less than land in general.

I suppose this comment, then, is perhaps better to note for strategy: don't be mislead into thinking that water tiles are as good as floodplains, plains or grassland (whether they have hills, forests, rivers or not).

The picture of a city on a coast that doesn't have any cottages isn't very compelling. I often build the colossus but end up not using water tiles nonetheless because the grassland is still better.

-- The Hypnotoad

Well, for me coastal cities with lots of water tiles are great for several reasons: minimal work needed to develop them (build a granary + lighthouse then let it grow to maximum size), immediate income since you don't have to wait for the cottages to develop, immunity to pillage.

Had not got around to it yet. I was thinking more along the lines of using farms and specialists instead of cottages (there are 2 of them there). This city also butts up against another and it was either build there or leave those tile unused. I chose the latter. With the commerce of this city, it certainly pays for itself and then some. The point of showing it, is that if your gonna have an ocean city, get a lot of water. I think water is best dealt with by either having as little as possible, or as much as possible. I agree 4 or 5 water tiles don't do much (if your trying for a land based commerce city) but an "oceania" also should not be avoided like the plague either imo.

I agree that the tiles are pretty much balanced as it is now. If water tiles were to produce a shield in someway (as in civ2) it would pretty much break the balance in the favor of coastal cities. It's better to leave it as it is now and let the less productive both financially beneficial coastal cities be a strategic element of the game.

Water tiles are ok in the early game, but suck in comparison to non-desert terrains. You need to build there, though, if you plan to invade another continent.

I would like to see the offshore platform added in a expansion, +1 hammer on coastal (not ocean) tiles.

What might be better is an improvement that added +1 Commerce to them (more in tune with water tiles) or possibly +1 food (so Water cities would rely on specialists)
Food would count as at least 1/3 production if you had sufficient happiness..1 Citizen Specialist costing 2 food for feeding and 1 for health

Actually a 3 food, 3 commerce tile is probably about as good as a grassland (4 food/0 commerce or 2 food/7 commerce) So possibly 2 extra late game Water buildings.
+1 Food to Water tiles
+1 Commerce to Water tiles

Good ideas, Krikkitone...something like a "fishing port" for food and "trade port" for commerce. I'm not sure of a way to implement them...I wouldn't want to swing the pendulum too far as too make water tiles too good.

Thanks for the strategy tip, Hypnotoad.