Any reason to settle on the coast?

[Sesquiterpene]

Now that cities can construct a harbor even if they're a few tiles away from the coast, can anyone see any advantage in placing a city on the coast?

 

[regeneration64]

I suppose a capital would get instant access to the sea so could explore earlier?

I used to play as England 90% of the time in CiV so very used to settling on the coast but, like the OP, am struggling to think of many advantages to settling on the coast.

 

[blackcatatonic]

There's an early eureka (I think the one for Sailing, appropriately enough) which needs you to found a city on the coast. I tested this and close enough to the coast to build a harbour doesn't count. But yeah, that's not really a reason in itself.

 

[iammaxhailme]

I think they should give you much more than a eureka, since the cost is that boats can attack your city. Currently it seems the reasons to settle ON the coast instead of NEAR it are far too small to be worth it

 

[O4rfish]

You can garrison your city with boats.

 

[criZp]

Nah, they need to increase water tile yields to 3 food 1 gold (up from 1 food 1 gold). Also make fish resources more abundant for that +0.5 housing. And then they need to separate land and naval trade units and make the naval ones better, like in ciV.

Make the ocean great again.

 

[Mr.WorldWide]

I think harbor districts should require that you build them next to the city district. This current build encourages all inland cities which is terrible because historically the best cities are on the coast.

 

[criZp]

I think harbor districts should require that you build them next to the city district. This current build encourages all inland cities which is terrible because historically the best cities are on the coast.

Then again the point of harbor districs is partially to allow cities to not settle on coast and still produce ships, to give more flexibility

 

[Shorlin]

Have the same housing bonus for coast and rivers imo.

 

[Disgustipated]

Although cities on rivers on the coast prospered the most historically.

I still do it, just a habit from older civ games, and I think it looks better. I play at a low enough level that defense isn't really an issue (although if it was a front line city I would consider settling inland).

Question: Is it worthwhile for cities settled on the coast to produce harbors? I think the extra trade route is worth it, I especially like harbors next to sea resources.

 

[Galbias]

There are a couple reasons to do it. If you're planning on doing any significant amount of sea exploration, you'll want one so you can actually get started before Harbors, which take awhile to get. There's also the Sailing Eureka, and the +1 Housing.

But yeah, aside from that coastal cities just aren't very good. Mainly because coast/ocean tiles suck, their yields are bad and you can't use them for any sort of district. Sea Resources have kind of crappy yields too.

 

[OAFK]

Wait what?! Are there no sea trade routes in Civ 6??

 

[Disgustipated]

Wait what?! Are there no sea trade routes in Civ 6??

Your traders can move over land and sea. So far my experience with sea routes is negative, barbs seem to roam the seas too much. But it's only my first game.

 

[criZp]

Wait what?! Are there no sea trade routes in Civ 6??

Yes there are, land/sea routes are the same unit with the same trade yields/range

 

[isau]

It seems to be very poorly balanced. That's really all I can say about it right now.

It's occasionally useful to settle the coast if there happen to be Whales or Crabs, because they give a fair amount of Gold, which otherwise may be hard to come by. But otherwise it's pretty bust.

I guess the plus side, if you consider it that, is that at least Germany's UU is a naval unit and generally not very useful, which may be the one thing keeping them from being the runaway best civ in the current build. An extra district + half off the production district really sets them apart considering that right now hammers are the most critical resource.

 

[Kwami]

Yes there are, land/sea routes are the same unit with the same trade yields/range

I don't think that's right. The range seems to be different, at least.

Do harbors work for sea routes? I'd expect them to, but I haven't tried it.

 

[OAFK]

Phew, I can work with that

 

[Deja Vu]

Only advantages I see at the moment
1. To reach Sea resources (but what the hell happened to all the sea luxuries? It seems like there are much less in Civ VI.)
2. Trade routes, range and ability to traverse water tiles
3. Can garrison a ship to defend your city
4. Eureka boost and ability to explore and create ships very early
5. The ability to embark and disembark without penalty from your city tile? Correct me if I'm wrong about this one.

 

[Abraxis]

Trade route range is doubled over water. If you want your coastal city to be a trade hub, you need to put it on the coast otherwise you'll only have access to about half the total area as you normally would otherwise, compared to a city 3 tiles inland with a harbour. You'll have to take my word for it or do the math yourself. I've already posted it in another thread and I'm too lazy to look for it.

 

[isau]

The real LOL is the +1 Housing, which seems like a reason to settle there, until you realize that just building 2 trash farms on any random tile would get you the same. Water tiles are a real mess right now. Unfortunately everything that was predicted in that several months long discussion about it has come true.