Analysis of commerce for Towns vs Coast

[Wodan]

Another thread spawned this analysis. The question was whether it was better to plant your starting settler right where he is, or to move. I said that, especially if on the coast, I prefer to move inland, both to get better tiles for my capitol as well as to increase the likelihood my capitol will be more "central" to my empire (for purposes of decreasing maintenance throughout the game). One premise is that your capitol is presumably one of your best commerce cities. To this end, I challenged myself to prove whether Towns are better than Coasts, even with Colossus and Great Lighthouse.

(Note: throughout this analysis, benefits which are the same in both situations are ignored. e.g., both could have a Bank, so that's moot.)

Okay, Towns will give +4 commerce (+1 with printing press, +2 with free speech / liberalism; total +7). So, and all-Town city will have 21 tiles * 4 = 84 total commerce (105 with printing press, 147 with free speech).

Coast is 2 commerce, +1 for Colossus (obsolete w/Astronomy). Harbor gives +50% trade route yields. Great Lighthouse is +2 trade routes; a trade route is +1 early game, about +4 by Corporation when it's obsolete). So, an all-Coast city will have 21 * 3 = 63 (42 with Astronomy) + 2 for the routes (+8 by Corporation, +0 after Corporation).

EARLY GAME (assume 1 trade route @ 2 commerce)
Towns provide 4x + 2 (working 6 = 26)
Coasts provide 3x + 9 (working 6 = 27)

MID GAME (assume 2 routes @ 3 commerce)
Towns 4x + 3 (working 12 = 51)
Coasts 2x + 18 (working 12 = 42)

LATE GAME (assume 3 routes @ 4 commerce)
Towns 4x + 4 (working 18 = 76)
Coasts 2x + 4 (working 18 = 40)

NOTES
--Towns have to "build up", true, but it would take a while to build the Colossus and Great Lighthouse. I would say those two are a wash in the early game. However, in the mid game, as population begins to work new tiles, don't get the full commerce benefit immediately from Towns, whereas the Coasts/Wonders are instantaneous. Edge--Coasts.
--Each flood plain will allow one normal plain with a Town, thus giving Hammers. Also, with Univ Suffrage (available early via Pyramids) you get 1 hammer per town! All Coasts would have nada production... forever. Edge--Towns.
--Raiding. Towns are vulnerable, coasts can be temporarily blockaded but immediately come back when the enemy leaves. Edge--Coasts
--Wonders. There's a risk you might not even GET the Colossus and Great Lighthouse. Other civs might beat you to it. Same is true of Pyramids, but this is a "cherry" in the first place... Coasts don't even have the option of getting Hammers from the Pyramids. Edge--Towns

CONCLUSION
--The numbers say Towns are clearly better, but they don't take into account the "build up" period. With this, I would say Towns break even with Coasts in the early and mid game. In the late game, Towns are clearly better. All build up will be completed and commerce is nearly double (!) that of the all-Coast city.
--Production clearly favors the all-town city.
--Raiding is the only potential liability, and can be covered by good gameplay.

I would almost say that a 50/50 would be ideal: get the Great Lighthouse especially, and build all towns. You'll be working the Towns, but get +2 trade routes. Don't even bother building Lighthouses in all your cities until mid game, when population forces you to work the Coasts. HOWEVER, this spites the late game in favor of the early game. That said, some might say research / commerce is more important in the early game.

Bottom line, you don't really have a choice of where your empire lies. You can choose, however, whether you want your capitol on the coast or inland, most of the time anyway. Your capital is probably your best production and/or commerce city. The analysis above says without a doubt you should have your capital inland, or with as much terrain and as little coast as possible. An inlet allowing minimal coast access to build harbor and get Great Lightouse benefits would be ideal.

Wodan

 

[DaviddesJ]

The analysis above says without a doubt you should have your capital inland, or with as much terrain and as little coast as possible.

I don't think your analysis implies anything like that. It does imply that grasslands are better than coasts (but we knew that already). But the coastal town is going to have some grasslands, some plains, some hills, some coasts, some ocean. And as you move inland you're going to give up coasts and ocean for a mix of terrain types: grasslands, plains, hills, maybe some peaks or deserts or tundra, etc. You're also going to reduce the yield of any inland lakes from 3 food to 2 food, which is a significant loss.

If you could plant your capital where you could get 20 grassland tiles, then you should obviously do that. But that's never the choice.

In the early game, your capital is mostly going to be working bonus tiles, and often some grasslands, whether it's on the coast, or inland. So the "advantage" of moving inland may be zero; you may be doing exactly the same thing whether you're on the coast or not. Nothing says that you have to work those coastal tiles first.

And, the late game statistics are pretty irrelevant, because by then you have lots of towns and there's no particular reason that your capital has to be the most important at that time. Eventually, you're going to have both the coastal town and the inland town, and in 1800 AD it won't really matter which one you built first in 4000 BC and which one came later in 3000 BC.

 

[MyOtherName]

Another thing to consider: building coastal cities gives you more space, by giving extra workable tiles to your civ. The grasslands that your coastal cities could have been working can often simply be worked by another city.

 

[Requies]

Another thing to consider: building coastal cities gives you more space, by giving extra workable tiles to your civ. The grasslands that your coastal cities could have been working can often simply be worked by another city.

Yet another thing. Your trade analysis in the end game is (or at least can be) off. I had a landlocked capital once which was producing 3 commerce per trade route while a coastal city (not even the capital) was producing 9 commerce per trade route for a net difference of 18 commerce.

If you add in free markets, the difference becomes 24 (30 w/ airports). And that CAN be significant, especially when you consider that coastal cities can ALSO BUILD COTTAGES in nearby spaces.....

Req

 

[walkerjks]

Yet another thing. Your trade analysis in the end game is (or at least can be) off. I had a landlocked capital once which was producing 3 commerce per trade route while a coastal city (not even the capital) was producing 9 commerce per trade route for a net difference of 18 commerce.

Commerce routes of 6 to 10 (with harbor) are pretty typical in islands/archipelago/continents games. It's less in panagea games (no overseas trade is possible).

My simple rule of thumb when playing financial is that 2 coast = 1 grassland. But building on the coast is worth at least 4 or 5 grasslands due to the following benefits:

- normal trade routes are better (2 improved trade routes on coast = 1 grassland)
- great lighthouse gives 2 bonus trade routes (1 bonus trade route = 1 grassland)
- greater access to seafood + harbors = more health = 1 grassland

This isn't meant as an in-depth quantitative analysis. In the end, I love cities that have limited (3 or so coastal tiles and no ocean) ocean access. I like pressed coasts for this reason.

 

[Wodan]

You're also going to reduce the yield of any inland lakes from 3 food to 2 food, which is a significant loss.

Good point. If, that is, there are any lakes that close to the ocean.

If you could plant your capital where you could get 20 grassland tiles, then you should obviously do that. But that's never the choice.

No, but, like many examples, the example I gave was an extreme one merely to prove the point. If 20 grassland tiles are better than 20 ocean tiles, then aren't 6 grassland tiles better than 6 ocean tiles? So, shouldn't I shift my city over to get those 6 grasslands and forget the 6 coasts?

In the early game, your capital is mostly going to be working bonus tiles, and often some grasslands, whether it's on the coast, or inland. So the "advantage" of moving inland may be zero; you may be doing exactly the same thing whether you're on the coast or not. Nothing says that you have to work those coastal tiles first.

Yes. I think I mentioned somewhere that the Colossus benefit in most cases is near useless. Usually it is preferable to be working Cottages than those coast tiles. Yes, you get a little less commerce for a few turns, but within a few short turns the commerce matches the Colossus/coast as the cottage changes to a hamlet, and then it passes it by becoming a Town.

Eventually, you're going to have both the coastal town and the inland town, and in 1800 AD it won't really matter which one you built first in 4000 BC and which one came later in 3000 BC.

Not necessarily. Nothing says you can't put ALL your cities such that their worked fat-cross is right up against the edge of the coast.

I think most of us are trained by Civ3 to maximize our surface area (and thus our # of cities). In Civ4, however, it is much more important to maximize the output of each city.

Wodan

 

[Wodan]

Another thing to consider: building coastal cities gives you more space, by giving extra workable tiles to your civ. The grasslands that your coastal cities could have been working can often simply be worked by another city.

As said in the last post, this isn't necessarily a benefit. Holdover from Civ3.

Actually, in my last game, I left tons of space around each city, to give myself more forests to chop. It also was great, because after chopping, those forests would grow back. Since they were outside my city radius (but the city still benefited from the chopping), I wasn't tempted to fill the space with cottages.

e.g., chop every other forest in this area. The forests fill in as the game progresses, and you can chop again.

Wodan

 

[Wodan]

Yet another thing. Your trade analysis in the end game is (or at least can be) off. I had a landlocked capital once which was producing 3 commerce per trade route while a coastal city (not even the capital) was producing 9 commerce per trade route for a net difference of 18 commerce.

Harbor will only account for 4.5 of that 18. To what do you attribute the rest?

If you add in free markets, the difference becomes 24 (30 w/ airports). And that CAN be significant, especially when you consider that coastal cities can ALSO BUILD COTTAGES in nearby spaces.....

Any bonus that can be possessed by either is moot.

Wodan

 

[Wodan]

Commerce routes of 6 to 10 (with harbor) are pretty typical in islands/archipelago/continents games. It's less in panagea games (no overseas trade is possible).

So, a coastal trade route is often worth more, because it can go to ANY other civ city, whereas a landlocked trade route must trace a path to the city, often disrupted by intervening civs with no Open Borders.

Is it also the case that a landlocked city cannot utilize another of your cities (which is on the coast)? Thus, your landlocked city could then only trade to cities on the same continent?

Either or both of these would explain why it might tend to be more. They would be a valid reason to keep a city on the coast.

An airport would probably overcome both of these things.

Wodan

 

[Requies]

Harbor will only account for 4.5 of that 18. To what do you attribute the rest?

It's due to the mechanism for how your cities choose trading cities. Basically, the best foreign trade routes tend to go to the coastal cities first (don't ask me why, I don't know).

However, one point to be made is that SOME coastal city will benefit from this (assuming you have a coastal city). However, since you're comparing a non-realistic situation anyways, that point is made somewhat moot.

Any bonus that can be possessed by either is moot.

Wodan

It's not possessed by either. It's the NET commerce (the coastal city will possess the better trade routes and thus have more commerce).

Req

 

[Quantum7]

It's due to the mechanism for how your cities choose trading cities. Basically, the best foreign trade routes tend to go to the coastal cities first (don't ask me why, I don't know).

Hmmmm. Maybe only coastal cities can have trade routes with cities of civ's on other contintents. And in-land cities only have trade routes with cities of civ's on your own continent?

 

[Quantum7]

As said in the last post, this isn't necessarily a benefit. Holdover from Civ3.

Actually, in my last game, I left tons of space around each city, to give myself more forests to chop. It also was great, because after chopping, those forests would grow back. Since they were outside my city radius (but the city still benefited from the chopping), I wasn't tempted to fill the space with cottages.

e.g., chop every other forest in this area. The forests fill in as the game progresses, and you can chop again.

Wodan

I strongly suspect you'd benefit more if you'd eventually fill that 'empty space' with more cities with more cottages. A few cottages already pay for that extra upkeep.

That also means they have a point. I tend to (eventually) even found cities that only have water tiles (and a fish) as those tend to pay for themselves pretty quickly.

 

[Xenocrates]

A capital on the coast of will probably be further from the average city, thus (I guess) increasing total maintenance.

The shape of your empire plays an important part (you know already!). Two medium-sized cities can culturally defeat an enemy city if placed correctly.

 

[Quantum7]

I don't think your analysis implies anything like that. It does imply that grasslands are better than coasts (but we knew that already). But the coastal town is going to have some grasslands, some plains, some hills, some coasts, some ocean. And as you move inland you're going to give up coasts and ocean for a mix of terrain types: grasslands, plains, hills, maybe some peaks or deserts or tundra, etc. You're also going to reduce the yield of any inland lakes from 3 food to 2 food, which is a significant loss.

Good point.

If you could plant your capital where you could get 20 grassland tiles, then you should obviously do that. But that's never the choice.

Agreed. Although near to 20 grassland-like tiles isn't that rare. Flood plains in combination with food resources help alot to make plains tiles as worthwhile as grasslands. You regularly get to have super-commerce (inland) cities.

And, the late game statistics are pretty irrelevant, because by then you have lots of towns and there's no particular reason that your capital has to be the most important at that time. Eventually, you're going to have both the coastal town and the inland town, and in 1800 AD it won't really matter which one you built first in 4000 BC and which one came later in 3000 BC.

Not quite. The capital is often amplified by lots of super specialists, Bureaucracy and things like Oxford University. Because of that the capital tends to produce alot more science / gold than other cities (and it can be useful to use bureaucracy for spaceship production). Because of that I prefer to have a capital that has a very limited number of coastal tiles (3 i.e.). Giving the best of both worlds.

 

[walkerjks]

Agreed. Although near to 20 grassland-like tiles isn't that rare. Flood plains in combination with food resources help alot to make plains tiles as worthwhile as grasslands. You regularly get to have super-commerce (inland) cities.

Even more common are jungle cities that are nearly all grassland. On all by the tiniest maps, you can get multiple mostly grassland cities by placing in the middle of jungles. Of course you need about 3 workers per jungle city to clear out the jungle, but the result can be a spectacular commerce city (and a simultaneously garbage production city - but a little gold can buy the buildings you need).

 

[DaviddesJ]

No, but, like many examples, the example I gave was an extreme one merely to prove the point. If 20 grassland tiles are better than 20 ocean tiles, then aren't 6 grassland tiles better than 6 ocean tiles? So, shouldn't I shift my city over to get those 6 grasslands and forget the 6 coasts?

If your example is unrealistic, then it doesn't "prove" anything about the common case.

If you can trade 6 ocean for 6 grasslands, then yes, that will eventually make that city more productive (although, it may not give any benefit in the early game, because if you're only working 6 tiles, it doesn't matter what the other 14 are; and it might mean that you're wasting more space later in the game, because you can't place a city to work those coast tiles).

But, in a more realistic case, you might be trading 3 coast and 2 ocean for 2 grasslands, 1 plains, 1 hill, and 1 peak. Is that a net win? Unclear. It depends a lot on what stage of the game is most important to you. And on considerations other than eventual total output of that particular city.

I think most of us are trained by Civ3 to maximize our surface area (and thus our # of cities). In Civ4, however, it is much more important to maximize the output of each city.

I don't agree with this, at all. What difficulty level are you playing at? At high levels, the AI players expand quickly to fill up the available space, and it becomes very important to use the space that you have as effectively as possible. In the late-game stage that you are discussing, the maintenance cost of each city just isn't that much compared to what it will generate.

 

[DaviddesJ]

Even more common are jungle cities that are nearly all grassland. On all by the tiniest maps, you can get multiple mostly grassland cities by placing in the middle of jungles. Of course you need about 3 workers per jungle city to clear out the jungle, but the result can be a spectacular commerce city (and a simultaneously garbage production city - but a little gold can buy the buildings you need).

But you wouldn't want that for your capital, which is what this thread is about. (And the placement algorithm won't put your start in the middle of a jungle.) That's a candidate for a city to be built later (at least, once you have Iron Working!). If you really want the late-game benefit of Bureaucracy in your jungle city, you can move your Palace there.

 

[Wodan]

If your example is unrealistic, then it doesn't "prove" anything about the common case.

I didn't say it was unrealistic, I said it was extreme.

The example could just as easily have been to compare 1 grassland tile vs 1 coast tile. Then, however, to get a realistic comparison, you would have to divide the trade route income by the number of worked tiles per city. Or something.

If you want a more "average" example, then we'll have to do a statistically relevant sample of 20-25 cities and chart them all against each other. Ugh.

Also you might note that my example didn't count for Ocean tiles... it assumed they were all Coast.

If you can trade 6 ocean for 6 grasslands, then yes, that will eventually make that city more productive (although, it may not give any benefit in the early game, because if you're only working 6 tiles, it doesn't matter what the other 14 are;

The comparison is still valid. Assume the city is only working 6 grassland regardless of the other 14, compare to a city working 6 coast. The benefits of the grassland still outweigh the benefits of the coast, even with the Colossus.

(I'm still uncertain about the trade routes. If inland trade routes cannot trace their route through your coastal city to another continent, then yes coastal cities would definitely have that in their favor.)

and it might mean that you're wasting more space later in the game, because you can't place a city to work those coast tiles).

It depends on how far you moved the city. Originally, this topic grew out of the question whether it was good to move your Capitol far enough in so that you could have a complete ring of cities around it (thus reducing city maintenance distance cost over the span of the whole game).

And, that also assumes that "wasting space" is a bad thing.

But, in a more realistic case, you might be trading 3 coast and 2 ocean for 2 grasslands, 1 plains, 1 hill, and 1 peak. Is that a net win? Unclear. It depends a lot on what stage of the game is most important to you. And on considerations other than eventual total output of that particular city.

Sure... I'll grant that you don't have any Mountains or Desert on that field of Coast and Ocean tiles.

I don't agree with this, at all. What difficulty level are you playing at? At high levels, the AI players expand quickly to fill up the available space, and it becomes very important to use the space that you have as effectively as possible. In the late-game stage that you are discussing, the maintenance cost of each city just isn't that much compared to what it will generate.

I have been playing on Monarch. And, I would never permit an AI to settle inside what I consider my territory, by declining Open Borders until such time as my culture has expanded to prohibit it.

So, you're saying that CIV is still ultimately about "the bigger your empire the better" just like CIII? That all that is changed is how we go about it?

I think I disagree with that premise. Calculate cost of a settler, city maintenance, increased empire maintenance, cost of worker to improve tiles, cost of garrison production, cost of garrison upkeep, etc. To say that late game your city income catches up with maintenance ignores all of these other things.

I think the designers went to great lengths to make a small empire just as viable as a big one, if not more so.

We could debate small vs big if you like.

Wodan

 

[Shillen]

I find a great deal of the time when you move your settler you pick up deserts/peaks/tundra/snow tiles. The game makes sure not to start you with those in your workable radius most of the time, but that doesn't mean they aren't 1 tile outside of the working radius from the start position.

 

[DaviddesJ]

The comparison is still valid. Assume the city is only working 6 grassland regardless of the other 14, compare to a city working 6 coast. The benefits of the grassland still outweigh the benefits of the coast, even with the Colossus.

That's not correct. If the city is size 6, then it can choose to work 6 grassland tiles, whether it's on the coast or inland. So you're getting no advantage from moving inland, just the disadvantage of not having access to the coastal buildings and wonders.

Just because your city is on the coast, doesn't mean that it has to work coast tiles. Until all of the other tiles are being worked (which would typically be very late in the game).

(I'm still uncertain about the trade routes. If inland trade routes cannot trace their route through your coastal city to another continent, then yes coastal cities would definitely have that in their favor.)

Inland cities can definitely have overseas trade routes. The only issue is that the computer tends to assign better trade routes to coastal cities, for whatever reason.

I have been playing on Monarch. And, I would never permit an AI to settle inside what I consider my territory, by declining Open Borders until such time as my culture has expanded to prohibit it.

When you start playing at higher levels, I think you'll find that making efficient use of the space you can get becomes considerably more important.