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

[stealth_nsk]

To sum it up, reasons to settle on the shore are:

1. If you want navy and/or naval trade routes, but don't want to invest in building Harbor.

2. If there's no lake or river nearby and you want city there.

3. If you don't loose tiles by moving to shore, i.e. if there are other cities with which this city would intersect if moved inland. Actually this could be quite important reason - you rarely will have cities with 6 tiles between them, so moving to shore in most cases will not mean losing tiles in the big picture.

 

[GauntZero]

Maybe it would also be interesting to not limit the additional tiles that you can have on the sea side.

Or make the limits less strict. Like, your city can get all land tiles that are up to 3 away from the city centre, but can get sea tiles that are up to 5 tiles away.

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

London got food from its surrounding countryside and the sea. Lisbon did the same. Sevilla was a big port before it became the trading hub of a massive empire.

As far as real world equivalencies go, trade is the most effective use of the water. But trade requires people to live there, and people didn't ship food around the world to trade hubs. There's plenty of food in the water.

The coastal cities grew on their own. They grew a TON more because people moved there for trade purposes, but they grew on their own first.

And we still haven't seen good internal trade routes, and especially routes that get buffed by being water routes.

When people say "coastal cities are some of the largest, most densely populated cities in the world" they are not talking about the humble beginnings. They are talking about the modern metropolises that have flourished because of trade.

Some kind of city centre-only building, for settling on the coast, similar to watermill, sounds like a great idea!

I'd jump behind that idea. What though? Only thing that really comes to mind is a tidal energy plant and that's pretty late game. Maybe some type of fish processing building?

 

[George Abitbol]

It's certainly odd that there don't seem to be any specific buildings for a city center that is founded on the coast, but there are buildings (e.g. water mills) that go in the city center if the center is on a river. Or maybe we just haven't seen them yet.

That's interesting. A fish market (adds food, aka water mill for coast) in early ages or a cruise terminal/liner pier (adds tourism, one extra slot for trade route?) in later eras could fit.

 

[isau]

I suppose another option is that buildings in a Harbor could act the ways Walls do in Encampments. Building the building puts a second copy in your city center.

Or the bonuses could just double/improve without actually putting a copy of the building there.

 

[tedhebert]

What I'd love to see is a "game of throne"ish, Wildfire mine area in the Harbour district as defensive building/enhancement

Go Tyrion Go

 

[kaspergm]

Being able to reach resources you can't from a river by being on the cost is weighing pros and cons. The pro of getting that resources vs the con of having less tiles.

There may be situations where resources will be worth it, but in most circumstances, you'll be able to reach some, if not all, resources by settling inland. If it's a matter of giving up 3+ land tiles in exchange for one sea resource, that sea resource has to be really, really good to make it worth it. In Civ5, a fish + lighthouse + seaport resource was indeed rather godly, but we haven't seen whether that is the case in Civ6, and apart from just the base tile yield, there's the question of district and wonder tile requirements which works heavily against too many water tiles in your city radius.

 

[BrokenBokken]

There may be situations where resources will be worth it, but in most circumstances, you'll be able to reach some, if not all, resources by settling inland. If it's a matter of giving up 3+ land tiles in exchange for one sea resource, that sea resource has to be really, really good to make it worth it. In Civ5, a fish + lighthouse + seaport resource was indeed rather godly, but we haven't seen whether that is the case in Civ6, and apart from just the base tile yield, there's the question of district and wonder tile requirements which works heavily against too many water tiles in your city radius.

I'm pretty confident after watching the LPs that there will be several occasions each game that to reach resources in land that you want will require some coastal settling.

 

[Bino]

Pardon me if im wrong, after watching only a few videos, room on the map could be a key to invest in coastal cities. If, between city states and opponents you are left with only room for capital and a couple of coastal cities, one would have to do with what the map provides, then with war improve the situation (or colonize other lands trough sea travel).

 

[kaspergm]

I don't question there will be coastal cities. I just think from a game play perspective, it's a bad decision that there seems to be so few drawbacks from settling near-coast instead of settling on-coast when it comes to naval capabilities. Personally, I would have liked the near-coast position to be somewhere halfway between a fully coastal city and a fully landlocked city in its abilities with regards to naval features. Instead, I see it being somewhere around 90 % if not actually 100 % as good, plus it has some benefits. Again, that's just my personal opinion.

 

[Tantor]

some posters say that the harbor district makes it less important to settle a city on the coast. Yes the harbour will provide you an access to the sea, but how long will it take to get access?

First you have to research the harbor district and get enough population for a district. Then you must decide wether the harbor is the most important district thus not building science or religion. Then you have to build the district and a naval unit.

If you settle on the coast you can choose to build a campus and a naval unit early on to slingshot your way to naval superiority.
OK, you run out of landhexes in 300 turns, but who cares about that city when your ships have raided you neighbours to oblivion......?

 

[mitsho]

Since a coastal city almost always would need a harbor (they increase the value of sea tiles, right?), maybe harbours shouldn't count towards the district limit in those cities? But again, let's wait for the game (or rather the first patch) first.

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

Since a coastal city almost always would need a harbor (they increase the value of sea tiles, right?), maybe harbours shouldn't count towards the district limit in those cities? But again, let's wait for the game (or rather the first patch) first.

From the looks of it they don't improve tiles, just add flat yields. It might not be a bad idea to just give coastal cities a free harbor. Something else I'm not at all opposed to. Maybe it will be moddable.

 

[Ikael]

When people say "coastal cities are some of the largest, most densely populated cities in the world" they are not talking about the humble beginnings. They are talking about the modern metropolises that have flourished because of trade.

There were hundred of ancient cities placed in the coast due to the food provided by nearby fish banks, greater possibilities for trade due to harbors, and better defensive position due to cliffs (see also: Ancient mediterranean cultures such as the phoenicians or the Minoics) with the mouths of rivers being the quinquaessential prime location for cities and were the first civilizations flourished (the Nile's delta, banks of the Euphrates, Yangtze's mouth, etc).

Also, do notice how the vast euroasian steppes of Mongolia, Turkmenistan and the likes are not exactly burstling with human megalopolises, not even nowadays. Extensive grassland plains are not a good place for locating a city in the real life.

I'd jump behind that idea. What though? Only thing that really comes to mind is a tidal energy plant and that's pretty late game. Maybe some type of fish processing building?

There are many, many possibilities, me thinks:

Fishery: Unlocks at sailing. +1 food to every sea tile

Drydocks: Unlocks at shipbuilding. X2 to the yields of workboats and atolls

Sea batteries: Unlocks at gunpowder. Your city gets a second extra ranged attack that can only target sea units.

Waterfront: Unlocks with urbanization. Increases appeal in all your beach and cliff tiles, +1 tourism on coast sea tiles.

Oceanographic institute: Unlocks with scientific method. +1 science in every ocean tile, +3 on natural sea wonders and atolls

Tidal powerplant: Unlocks with renewable energy. +1 production in every sea tile adyacent to your city districts

So in essence, a city built on coast rather than inland plus harbour would get far better benefits out of sea reasources in the early game (drydocks, fisheries), better defense on the mid game, just when sea trade becomes important (sea batteries) and increased late game science and production if you really planned ahead your city location.

 

[kaspergm]

There are many, many possibilities, me thinks:

Fishery: Unlocks at sailing. +1 food to every sea tile

Drydocks: Unlocks at shipbuilding. X2 to the yields of workboats and atolls

Sea batteries: Unlocks at gunpowder. Your city gets a second extra ranged attack that can only target sea units.

Waterfront: Unlocks with urbanization. Increases appeal in all your beach and cliff tiles, +1 tourism on coast sea tiles.

Oceanographic institute: Unlocks with scientific method. +1 science in every ocean tile, +3 on natural sea wonders and atolls

Tidal powerplant: Unlocks with renewable energy. +1 production in every sea tile adyacent to your city districts

So in essence, a city built on coast rather than inland plus harbour would get far better benefits out of sea reasources in the early game (drydocks, fisheries), better defense on the mid game, just when sea trade becomes important (sea batteries) and increased late game science and production if you really planned ahead your city location.

Excellent!

 

[stealth_nsk]

Excellent!

I'm not always catch sarcasm in English, are we seriously discussing suggestions about balance changes in the game we haven't played and which is not out yet?

As I see it, coastal cities are ok as it is. In real life it will not work as it's on paper. You'll settle on coast because you want your trade route right now, not in 30 turns. You'll not see sea tiles as bad ones, because inland there will be other cities competing for the tiles and sea tiles are much better than land tiles owned by another city. And so on.

 

[BrokenBokken]

I feel as though most of the arguments in this thread assume you will always be comparing perfect coastal city to perfect in land city, which doesn't seem like a scenario that will occur often. If you admit that we'll see cities on the coast, then there must've been good reason for people to found those cities there. That means they weighed positives and negatives.

Not to mention the whole idea of unstacking cities is that this whole sprawl is supposed to be a city. If a district or districts are on the coast... the city is on the coast. This idea that only the city center is the city seems to clash directly with the key concept that the whole sprawl is the city.

 

[Plus Ultra]

I'm not always catch sarcasm in English, are we seriously discussing suggestions about balance changes in the game we haven't played and which is not out yet?

Pretty much, yes. Is it really that surprising? Here? At CivFANATICS?

I share Krajzen and Atlas627 concerns regarding the nonexistence of incentives to settling directly adjacent to the coast, and consider Ikael's ideas quite brilliant, to be honest.

I also agree inland and coastal cities don't need to be balanced, since we can have both, but it would be nice to have good reasons to settle smaller islands or coast besides having no other locations avaliable.

Granted, we need to play the game to know for sure, there are plenty of things that could make coastal cities great, but as of today, little has surfaced, and therefore most of the assumptions made in this thread seem reasonable to me.

 

[Depravo]

... with the mouths of rivers being the quinquaessential prime location for cities and were the first civilizations flourished (the Nile's delta, banks of the Euphrates, Yangtze's mouth, etc).

I completely agree with your basic premise, but not this one point. Though all the earliest civilisations famously emerged in flood plains, they all did so some way from the coast. Centred on the mouths of the Yangtze, Indus, Nile and Tigris were vast stretches of unfarmable and barely navigable marshland. And civilisation emerged where it did because of agriculture far more than external trade - that came later when marginal cultures came wanting a taste of the good stuff, and strong demand for things other than food emerged.

Old Kingdom Egypt, centred on Memphis and Thebes...



Sumer, centred away from the sea...



Harappa, little as we know about them...



Shang China, effectively landlocked. As were the Zhou. Much of Shandong was still in barbarian hands in Confucius' time.

 

[stealth_nsk]

It's not a question of historical accuracy, it's question of strategic choices. If you never want to build a city on the coast, that's bad for a game. But I don't think that's the case based on what we've seen.