Very few sea resources (and reasons to settle on the coast)

[Krajzen]

So far we've seen a great variety of cool land resources (strategic, bonus, luxury) and sea resources look so poor in comparision...

http://well-of-souls.com/civ/civ6_terrain.html

The only sea resources are: two luxuries (pearls, whales), two bonus (fish, crabs) and one strategic (oil, can be also on land).

This looks very poor in comparision with land assets (I've counted 22 land luxury resources in total). Back when we got the first informations on districts I thought maybe sea cities will be worth more because of rich sea resources, but it is hard to be optimistic when 90% of luxuries are on land and sea doesn't offer any exclusive strategic resources (oil, as I said, can be on land too).

So here we go:
- you don't need to settle cities on coast to build ships
- sea tiles (iirc) have worse yields than land ones in general
- they have very few resources compared to land tiles
- cities are unstacked and you can't build on most water tiles, so on top of all you lose building spots and potentially even more yields

Is there any reason to build coastal or more sea based cities now? Don't even tell me about that sailing eureka, geez I'll totally take those few beakers of cheap tech instead of all superior aspects of more inland cities.

 

[Gintoki89]

I was gonna mention coastal wonders, but I guess they could probably be built in a land city near-ish to the ocean...

I guess there really isn't a reason we've seen so far, aside from possibly wanting to get in on early naval stuff before harbors, but that is a very weak reason.

EDIT: I guess if you have no river access it's worth a housing boost, but whether or not that's worth giving up the space that could be used to build improvements/wonders/districts seems very questionable.

 

[MAHRana]

i think i realized this too when they talked about how a coastal district can be made instead of having a city by the coast (i understand if it's by a river mouth or something but i think it takes more away in this case). Waters were/are an important part of human civilization.

 

[Mort_Q]

I wonder how hard it would be to have the maps generated with resources 3 tiles out to sea, and 4 tiles inland? Just to make choices interesting. What pairing of resources would make it interesting?

 

[nukehumvee]

I have an idea. Have a late game tech that reveals undersea versions of minerals, and underwater mining a tier or two later.

 

[Thormodr]

There may be a few more sea based natural wonders like The Great Barrier Reef. Perhaps they'll be placed a bit further out from land so that you need a coastal city to work them.

 

[zwei833]

I agree, so let's just don't settle on the coast.

 

[jye42]

In the real world oceans are not very valuable except for deep sea oil and fishing (both of which are included) Although, civilizations like Japan and Greece relied heavily on the sea for fishing there is little other advantage. Also, think about some civs like Spain and France, both had significant navies but their capitals are not coastal. On TSL earth maps these cities will now be able to build ships. Why is it important that coast cities must be 'balanced'

Also I see districts as being smaller towns and cities or sprawl of the large city. An example I know of is the Economic district and harbor district get a bonus for being side by side, Imagine a large sprawling coastal city the hex on the coast has the economy district, habour right next to it in the shallows the city itself is not on the coast... does it matter?

 

[Brianstorm]

How will sea trade routes work, I'm guessing even non coastal cities will be able to get them if they build a harbor?

 

[Atlas627]

If the tiles can't be improved, then they have to be at least passable by default. 1f1g is not passable.

If there is no way to make them all passable, we have a problem.

 

[lankypeter]

I've wondered about this, no cities directly on the coast, and I've come to the opinion that one of the biggest benefits here is to make taking cities with navy more difficult. You can no longer roll up multiple battleships and just hammer a city down and then take it with one or two land units.

 

[isau]

Actually in the real world most city "centers" are not actually in the center. One of the artifices of Civilization is circular borders. Real cities are almost never shaped that way.

I'm hoping there are policies to make coastal cities worth it.

 

[JimmyBanks]

Actually in the real world most city "centers" are not actually in the center. One of the artifices of Civilization is circular borders. Real cities are almost never shaped that way.

I'm hoping there are policies to make coastal cities worth it.

That would be an interesting change. Have the same amount of hex but have them in a random shape, it could be fine by the player when your border is ready to expand you can select which tile expands and it can be a max of 5 tiles away.

Would make an interesting mod

 

[m15a]

The increased housing limit (versus a city with no access to water at all) might be enough to justify putting smaller cities on the coast. You'll lose some workable land tiles, but a city without any water might not be able to grow enough to use those tiles anyway (plus, those tiles might be better used by a nearby city with access to fresh water).

 

[Martinus]

In the real world oceans are not very valuable except for deep sea oil and fishing (both of which are included) Although, civilizations like Japan and Greece relied heavily on the sea for fishing there is little other advantage. Also, think about some civs like Spain and France, both had significant navies but their capitals are not coastal. On TSL earth maps these cities will now be able to build ships. Why is it important that coast cities must be 'balanced'

Also I see districts as being smaller towns and cities or sprawl of the large city. An example I know of is the Economic district and harbor district get a bonus for being side by side, Imagine a large sprawling coastal city the hex on the coast has the economy district, habour right next to it in the shallows the city itself is not on the coast... does it matter?

I was about to post something similar. In real world, a capital located directly on a coast was quite rare, whereas in CiV it was almost a no-brainer if you started near the coast.

Seas have been great for trade and travel, but until offshore drilling, they almost never rivalled land for resources.

Edit: And one other country you forgot which does not have a coastal capital but had one of the greatest navies in the world is, of course, England.

 

[Atlas627]

There has been indication that all trade routes use the same Trader units, and I don't recall seeing any difference between land and naval routes.

The ocean has historically provided food and ease of transport, which means the main trade routes.

So far, it seems to have neither.

The ease of transport also has resulted in its use for Imperialism, but that is mostly to secure trade.

There seems to be no reason to use ships, either to protect trade or to conquer overseas.

And cities that are close to the coast but on a river are basically on a coastal tile in Civ terms. London would be on the coast. Paris would be inland on a river, with a harbor district. Even Vienna would have a harbor district in Trieste. In Civ terms, London is on the coast, and for no good gameplay reason so far.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

One reason that hasn't been mentioned is that if you have no cities directly on the coast, then an enemy navy could demolish all your harbors and prevent you from ever rebuilding them, making you land-locked for the rest of the game. Granted that with the abysmal AI we've seen (so far), this is more of a danger in multiplayer, or something the human player might exploit against the AI; but it's there nonetheless. In practice, I suspect it means we'll settle one city at the end of a long narrow bay / fjord ('just in case'), and have the rest of the cities be inland.

 

[Stilgar08]

housing bonus and appeal of coastal tiles could be a reason if you go for culture victory...
Furthermore sea-trading could indeed be a kicker for coastal cities - maybe they offer higher income combined with a harbor district which makes it worthwhile
As stated by others there might be possibilities to start navy earlier with a coastal city (no harbor district needed)

So I have a few hopes it might still be feasible to settle by the ocean...

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Maybe the water tile yields can be improved. You do get some fresh water from coast which is better then nothing which most land tiles provides.

Cities near the water can build a port which give a trade route. This mean a costal empire can have twice as many trade routes as a land based one.

Given that cities don't have an upkeep or penalty after founding you could maybe pack more cities in a single area is you build some of them on the coast. All districts get an adjacency bonus for being next to other districts so unlike older civ games civilization VI actually encourage you to build cities near each other so you can build alot of districts next to each other.

 

[mitsho]

There's the 3-tile-city minimal distance which may force you towards the coast (if overlap proves as worthwhile).

The harbor takes a full tile which can be more easily "blockaded" (pillaged) than a city so you may run into the problem of losing sea superiority (like air...).

There's tourism and appeal rates, trading routes being much more valuable and maybe port cities giving you a bonus to espionage (those gossiping sailors).

And I can't really think of many more examples for sea resources, so instead of making something up, sea tiles need to be improved by better tile yields. Just relax for when the game is released or we at least have more information