Any reason to settle on the coast?

[CoconutTank]

Ah I see. Thanks for the clarification

 

[bcaiko]

What map type were you playing on? It must have been Pangaea! I could see not needing a navy on that map type (which is why I avoid it). Continents and Islands would definitely require a Navy unless you go the isolationist route and send no trade routes over to other continents.

I was on continents. And, no, I never needed a navy. Did just fine in a full domination victory on King with two ships the entire game. You're right that on Islands, settling on the coast would be unavoidable, and therefore the naval dynamic would change. But in most continents games or other maps aren't going to require any kind of sizable navy because the game's mechanics don't lead the player to need to make those choices.

 

[Agent Zero Range]

There is one ship no one has mentioned (if i missed it skimming sorry)the aircraft carrier with 2 bombers on that sucker and you can destroy cites deep inland! naval projected air power is great. I build one for lulz on pangea and it was surprisingly effective.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

There is one ship no one has mentioned (if i missed it skimming sorry)the aircraft carrier with 2 bombers on that sucker and you can destroy cites deep inland! naval projected air power is great. I build one for lulz on pangea and it was surprisingly effective.

Question on that...does the carrier get any experience besides being in combat itself ( like experience when its planes perform an attack)

 

[dexters]

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.

Harbour district from an inland city do not benefit from this doubling of trade route range? only coastal cities do?

 

[TruthfulCake]

The Sailing Eureka is NOT worth settling on the coast right now. Settling on the coast, in the best case scenario, guarantees you at least 3 tiles of water, which is very very bad currently in terms of yields. The only district you can build on it is the harbor, which doesn't help with the general poor yield, and can be done even if you only have 1 tile of water. The other added benefits are the tiles on which to build aquatic wonders, but those are too conditional to be advisable when deciding on the right tile to settle, especially since land tiles are just so much more versatile. Water resources aren't that valuable either.

This is all without mentioning the vulnerability to melee naval attacks.

Return the water tile yield bonus from lighthouses and seaports, and then it will be worthwhile. Also, if crabs become luxuries again, it will help increase the value of coastal settlements in general.

 

[Furycrab]

The Sailing Eureka is NOT worth settling on the coast right now. Settling on the coast, in the best case scenario, guarantees you at least 3 tiles of water, which is very very bad currently in terms of yields. The only district you can build on it is the harbor, which doesn't help with the general poor yield, and can be done even if you only have 1 tile of water. The other added benefits are the tiles on which to build aquatic wonders, but those are too conditional to be advisable when deciding on the right tile to settle, especially since land tiles are just so much more versatile. Water resources aren't that valuable either.

This is all without mentioning the vulnerability to melee naval attacks.

Return the water tile yield bonus from lighthouses and seaports, and then it will be worthwhile. Also, if crabs become luxuries again, it will help increase the value of coastal settlements in general.

Just though I'd mention... While you can be attacked by naval melee, that city can't be sieged just by land units. Sure if you plan on overunning a city, it might seem weaker, but most of the time, the fact that you need a boat to ZOC that last tile going out can be a pain in the ass. If you have a navy, a coastal city is significantly easier to defend... and well you can always get naval wonders with the extra tiles.

 

[player1 fanatic]

The Sailing Eureka is NOT worth settling on the coast right now.

But getting access to early ships is, without need to build expensive district. Just make sure to minimize number of ocean tiles in the city.

 

[TruthfulCake]

But getting access to early ships is, without need to build expensive district. Just make sure to minimize number of ocean tiles in the city.

Early ships are way too limited in mobility and utility anyway. It's not until you unlock units that can cross the oceans (and therefore, capable of building the harbor district) are naval units truly useful. More often than not, I just feel it hampers with growth and production, since you are halving proper "workable" tiles. But yes, the ideal case where you have only 3 (the least) water tiles might not be too bad.

 

[Babarigo]

But getting access to early ships is, without need to build expensive district. Just make sure to minimize number of ocean tiles in the city.

How getting ships early is useful ? No maritime trade routes to protect, no coastal cities no defend except the one you built and unless you play on island map few cities from the ai to conquer. Anyway your arguments are also true for the previous civ games and the coastal tiles weren't as bad as now. Right now water tiles are the worst tiles in the game besides mountains. Their yield is so bad that you will never work it and you can't build districts besides the harbour. At least if you build a city with half grass half desert you can use the desert tiles for placing districts so you don't use good tiles for them. In a coastal city you will have to share your land tiles between mines, farms and districts.

 

[player1 fanatic]

Exploration, getting to places you can not on land with scouts, etc...

Having single city have couple of ocean tiles will not kill it on the long run. In fact, just by having it closer to the coast, you can get more land for inland cities, or maybe room for more cities ovarall.

 

[Babarigo]

I still think that's it's far from being that important and I'd rather have a city with stronger yields but anyway, the pros you have stated were also true in the previous civ games and water tiles weren't as bad. Right now the coastal cities are just worse than before and I don't see what logic is behind this decision.

 

[Agent Zero Range]

Question on that...does the carrier get any experience besides being in combat itself ( like experience when its planes perform an attack)

no exp for the carrier i bought an admiral to give it a lvl of exp but he appeared in the lake by my capiral and i cant move him. admirals need to be set to go to ocean cities. and he cannot enter the city i built a harbour and he still cant move....

 

[TheXMassTeam]

Hi,
Some reasons to build coastal cities :
- role-play
- early game interdiction of AI naval or settlers roaming

 

[JellyRev]

If you play the map Inland Sea, coastal tiles are actually decent. 85% of tiles on the coast are luxury or bonus resource. Makes harbor shell out a few more coins.

 

[Abraxis]

Harbour district from an inland city do not benefit from this doubling of trade route range? only coastal cities do?

If we're to take "Double" as not being literal, and understand that the service area (not range) bonus is incidental... then I can give you an easy yes.

The important thing is having a trade post in a city that allows a trader to use as few (ideally no) land movements as possible, since they cost double.

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

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,

You know subs can bombard land stuff, right. They can sit 2 tiles out and not be seen for return fire unless an opponent unit is next to them, or they have a sub or destroyer.