Anyone else rush to settle on the shore versus rushing inland?

[tedeviatings]

Minus two energy each so that's a cost of two energy for three science versus one science and one energy plus two food to feed the person and a bonus production. (Biowells are special and used as needed so not really fair in this comparison) You get more science per pollution with Academies but your going to need much more energy. I do use an Academy or two per city later on, but my military is often soaking up all my spare energy.

You are comparing an academy (+3 -2 ) with a water refinery improved sea tile (+2 +1 +1 ). Unless you build your academy on snow however you also have to factor in base tile gains - if you don't it's not a fair comparison. Also you if you want to count the +1 the pop working the water tile produces you also have to count the +1 the pop working the academy produces.
I can understand your argument about your military costing so much you can't afford academies. You can still get farms, generators and mines for free, though. In most situations you can create a tile that's better than +2 +1 +1 .

 

[bite]

There was a time I would rush to the sea, but I don't tend to do that so much any more

 

[GAGA Extrem]

You can still get farms, generators and mines for free, though. In most situations you can create a tile that's better than +2 +1 +1 .

Sidenote: That takes time. I think Water Refineries are a good way to employ your pops in growing cities without having to invest worker time, so they are actually one of the more useful buildings around.

That being said, I can't see many reasons to found coastal cities post-patch, mostly because coastal cities require extra tech investment. There are some situations where they shine, like several sea ressource tiles or access to stations placed on islands, but on the flip side you are really vulnerable to hostile naval units. And naval attacks are much more brutal and much harder to defend against if you are not prepared.

That being said, I still think that nerfing the trade route yields for Trade Vessels was the correct way to go, because it made coastal cities way too powerful.

 

[tedeviatings]

The advantage with worker time is you don't have to slowly build a 150 building in your new city that has a lot of other important buildings to get through. Rather you quickly build one or two 60 workers in one of your big production cities that already finished the interesting buildings. That is if you don't have enough workers already. And then there's the tech detour.

Please note I'm not arguing that the tech or the building is useless or bad. I'm arguing it's mediocre in that it suffers from improved land tiles being always better than regular water. So all you reliably gain is +1 +1 on sea resources and nice fallback tiles in regular water. You can use the regular water when you don't have better tiles but you don't want to work them long-term - they're just not good enough for that.

Which does mean the tech and the building can certainly be alright, maybe even good on water maps. But it's certainly not universally good the way a lot of other techs or buildings are... Which makes is mediocre in the end.

 

[Ryika]

I think how good the building is really depends on what kind of player one is.

For a really new player (or one that just doesn't care about playing efficient) it's probably quite good building, because it gives a really great boost when land tiles don't get improved efficiently.

For a normal player it's less valuable because improved land tiles should always have greater yield...

And for someone who is trying to min-max the game it's probably a horrible building on a tech that should not at all be researched ever (*on Land-focused maps), because as long as you're not totally falling behind in worker-count then land tiles should always have better yields - and (not sure if I am repeating myself here or if I said that in another thread ^^) tile yields are (one of if not) the most efficient way of converting Energy into more useful resources, so using "fallback"-tiles just drains your progress like nothing else.

 

[tedeviatings]

so using "fallback"-tiles just drains your progress like nothing else.

Well, that's why they're fallback tiles. You don't actually WANT to work them, it's just that for one reason or another you can't work really good tiles right now. And while it's not something you optimize for, it is an advantage to have better fallback tiles, however minor.

horrible building on a tech that should not at all be researched ever (*on Land-focused maps)

I think I agree with what you mean but not with what you say. Because what you say can be refuted by giving one single example of a land-focused map where it's actually sensible to research the tech.

Now I had this one game a couple of days ago where, on a protean map, my capital got placed on a three files wide strip of land surrounded by ocean. So great! On top end there was land but also the AIs, two cities where all I could get in and it was close enough to the AI to expect a DoWed for forward settling. On the bottom end there was a peninsula. Long story short it was very sensible to settle 7 of 8 cities on the coast although I generally optimize for land tiles. This game I actually got the water refinery tech.

I'm not 100% sure it was worth it but actually optimistic. Which is why I wouldn't call the tech horrible even on land maps. Certainly it's not good when the majority of your cities isn't costal. But unless your playing a map entirely without water there can still be games and situations where the tech is actually worth considering. Probably even good on water maps.

 

[wayneb64]

So when do you usually win?

I have been playing mostly Quick/Soyez and winning in the 225-250 range. I am just working my way though the Achievements. I did play two Apollo games, quit the first one and won the second, but don't remember what turn. I have not really been in a 'hurry' to win, just practicing my wide play. Once I get most of the Achievements I plan to play only Apollo and at that point I may be forced into Academy spamming, but so far I just don't 'feel' it. I don't have an optimized path through the tech web, just picking the tech that solves my most important need at that moment. Rapid expansion with health no worse than -10 or so is my goal. Maxing population growth is my defacto mode of maxing tech pace. Getting nearby land before the AI does is more important than the tech web victory race.

 

[wayneb64]

I rarely play land based maps because to me that takes out half of the military tactics of naval battles and control. Having to conquer cities on another continent is much easier in BE, but still is harder than an all land game. The net is coastal cities are huge in my games, and land locked cities are rare unless the continent is rather large.

 

[Ryika]

Well, that's why they're fallback tiles. You don't actually WANT to work them, it's just that for one reason or another you can't work really good tiles right now. And while it's not something you optimize for, it is an advantage to have better fallback tiles, however minor.

Yes, if the water refinery actually was free and pre-built in every city (or if water tiles just had these yields by default), then that's of course the case - but these fallback tiles come at a price, a rather high one I might add.

I think I agree with what you mean but not with what you say. Because what you say can be refuted by giving one single example of a land-focused map where it's actually sensible to research the tech.

Now I had this one game a couple of days ago where, on a protean map, my capital got placed on a three files wide strip of land surrounded by ocean. So great! On top end there was land but also the AIs, two cities where all I could get in and it was close enough to the AI to expect a DoWed for forward settling. On the bottom end there was a peninsula. Long story short it was very sensible to settle 7 of 8 cities on the coast although I generally optimize for land tiles. This game I actually got the water refinery tech.

Yes, right. I should have probably worded that differently - what I meant was something like: "If there aren't already a bunch of water resources that you'd want to work anyway..." instead of just excluding that specific map type.

I'm not 100% sure it was worth it but actually optimistic. Which is why I wouldn't call the tech horrible even on land maps. Certainly it's not good when the majority of your cities isn't costal. But unless your playing a map entirely without water there can still be games and situations where the tech is actually worth considering. Probably even good on water maps.

It's horrible as a tech that you "always take" is what I meant. It's actually one of the few techs that can be taken situational, although I'm really skeptic a scenario where a single city would get one - haven't done the math though, so my opinion on that case may just be completely wrong.

I have been playing mostly Quick/Soyez and winning in the 225-250 range. I am just working my way though the Achievements. I did play two Apollo games, quit the first one and won the second, but don't remember what turn. I have not really been in a 'hurry' to win, just practicing my wide play. Once I get most of the Achievements I plan to play only Apollo and at that point I may be forced into Academy spamming, but so far I just don't 'feel' it. I don't have an optimized path through the tech web, just picking the tech that solves my most important need at that moment. Rapid expansion with health no worse than -10 or so is my goal. Maxing population growth is my defacto mode of maxing tech pace. Getting nearby land before the AI does is more important than the tech web victory race.

See, I think that's the difference. I've spend most of the time in the game with trying to maximize my strategy and throwing out as much as possible to get to the end quickly - my fastest Transcendence Victory (probably the most reliable and stable victory condition) was turn 206 on Standard Speed - admittedly an insane start and very far away from any of the AIs (I literally almost didn't build any military throughout the whole game except for some scouts that roamed the lands around me to not be surprised), but in general I manage to win on turn 210-220 (sometimes ~230, if the game starts bad - or I just lose because my neighbor attacks me before I'm ready ), and there's still a lot of room for further optimization.

So what I'm basically saying is: The thoughts you put into the posts above probably make a lot of sense for the way you play - but the more you go towards just trying to win fast, the more of this stuff just doesn't matter anymore, because a fast victory is mostly won by just throwing out all the additional stuff (like affinity resources - they're basically only some free gpt from trades - affinity buildings and units will never pay for themselves) and instead pushing right through the middle. (Which is, I agree, a bit sad - but that's the way things are right now)

 

[wayneb64]

So what I'm basically saying is: The thoughts you put into the posts above probably make a lot of sense for the way you play - but the more you go towards just trying to win fast, the more of this stuff just doesn't matter anymore, because a fast victory is mostly won by just throwing out all the additional stuff (like affinity resources - they're basically only some free gpt from trades - affinity buildings and units will never pay for themselves) and instead pushing right through the middle. (Which is, I agree, a bit sad - but that's the way things are right now)

Playing to win fast means you would be happy to never have to deal with the AIs or battle them. That to me turns the game into a tech race to the finish line and not all that 'fun'. My solo Apollo win had me spending most of the first 100 turns fighting off four alien nests trying to get my second city built in a primo spot. That was a lot of fun, but it put me behind the curve against many of the other AIs, and it was also fun managing to recover from that.

Claiming all the 'primo' city locations nearby and expanding as fast as I can without crashing my Civ is the fun challenge for me. I never even decide on a victory condition until well past mid game and I have a large civilization built up and the neighbors subdued. Being on the coast is a nice and important bonus for a primo city location.

Most of my wars are started because an AI colonist comes into my area and threatens to take some of 'my' promised land.

 

[Ryika]

Sure, and that's all fine. I was just explaining why we disagreed so strongly on that topic - we just come from two very different points of view.

 

[tedeviatings]

@Ryika
After reading your response I'm pretty confident we agree at least 98% on this topic

 

[ohu1111]

I like to settle on the coast when playing purity because they're best unit is the LEV Destroyer. I can also get more diverse options for trading. So, yeah, this my two cents.

ohu1111

 

[reddishrecue]

I prefer settling on the shore, cargo vessels give more food in trade routes.

 

[tedeviatings]

I prefer settling on the shore, cargo vessels give more food in trade routes.

That's how it used to be but currently land and sea trade route gains are exactly identical.

 

[reddishrecue]

That's how it used to be but currently land and sea trade route gains are exactly identical.

Not when theyre internal food trade routes, no.

 

[Ryika]

I actually had to double-check that, just to make sure I haven't been doing it wrong the whole time, but no, internal sea trade routes don't get bonuses either - tedeviatings is right. Yields are exactly the same since the fall patch, for internal as well as for external trade routes.

 

[liv]

I actually had to double-check that, just to make sure I haven't been doing it wrong the whole time, but no, internal sea trade routes don't get bonuses either - tedeviatings is right. Yields are exactly the same since the fall patch, for internal as well as for external trade routes.

And yet the sea trade routes cost more to produce....
Although I find getting international trade routes over sea is easier so maybe that makes up for it. But I really think they should change that

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I tend to settle the coasts in games with rugged, inaccessible terrain in the early/mid game.

I have been trying to break my Civ V habit of heavily preferring the coasts due to lack of melee water units and lackluster water trade routes though.