Aqueduct Construction

row2infinity

Chieftain
Joined
Jun 4, 2018
Messages
85
I read a lot about how no one builds aqueducts. Do y’all just allow your cities to slow growth during that point in time? Do you never want to settle cities in places that don’t have fresh water available? I’m confused. lol
 

Browd

Dilettante
Administrator
Joined
Aug 5, 2012
Messages
11,979
Location
Rural Vermont
Usually don't care about city growth, so most games only build one for the Military Engineering eureka. Good use for a captured city -- doesn't matter much if it takes the city 30+ turns to grind out an Aqueduct.
 

UWHabs

Deity
Joined
Oct 10, 2008
Messages
4,910
Location
Toronto
As the Khmer or the Romans, build them a lot.

Everyone else? Very rarely. It's not hard to throw a couple farms/plantations/pastures, plus a granary, to get you to size 4. Then after that a few more farms, or policy cards, or whatever, can get you to sizes 6-8. If I really wanted to go higher, I usually just wait to get neighbourhoods. Plus I usually just settle on water. Not usually more than 1-2 cities per game off of water.
 

row2infinity

Chieftain
Joined
Jun 4, 2018
Messages
85
Also I like building them because they help me get a +3 adjacency bonus for commercial districts a lot of the time so it’s a win win?
 

Leathaface

Emperor
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
1,720
Location
Cork, Ireland
I only build aqueducts if i'm playing as Rome or if I settle a city with no fresh water at all but has a mountain nearby. (which happens rarely) I really don't want to settles cities with no fresh water.

With dam's given 4 housing in GS i've even less incentives to build Aqueducts.
 

pgm123

Emperor
Joined
May 21, 2017
Messages
1,168
I don't like wasting the tile. That's a good spot for a campus or a holy site.
 

AriochIV

Colonial Ninja
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
5,963
Location
Nehwon
I read a lot about how no one builds aqueducts. Do y’all just allow your cities to slow growth during that point in time? Do you never want to settle cities in places that don’t have fresh water available? I’m confused. lol
If you settle adjacent to a river or other fresh water source, an Aqueduct only adds +2 to Housing. It's really not worth wasting the tile.

I do occasionally build aqueducts in cities that aren't adjacent to fresh water, but it's rare that there's a source nearby and I don't settle adjacent to it. So the only time it's available is if there happens to be a mountain close, or more often the city is one the AI settled and I conquered.

GS should make the Aqueduct a more attractive option with its drought resistance, but only in cities that don't have a river nearby and can build a Dam.

As I'm thinking about it, I wonder if having a Lake adjacent to the city center should provide the same drought resistance as a Dam. Kinda silly if a man-made lake helps you but a larger natural one doesn't.
 
Joined
Feb 7, 2018
Messages
2,959
I read a lot about how no one builds aqueducts. Do y’all just allow your cities to slow growth during that point in time? Do you never want to settle cities in places that don’t have fresh water available? I’m confused. lol

One of the hardest things to get one's head around in Civ 6, if you've played other versions of civ, is that you don't need to grow your population in Civ 6. Therefore, anything that provides housing and only housing is of little to no benefit in terms of winning.

A city with no water is just fine. That doesn't impact the productivity of it's districts and buildings in the least.

Of course, you may well want to grow your cities as big as possible, as that's always been something one wanted to do in past versions of civ and it seems sort of wrong to not keep doing it. If you're having fun and enjoying whatever level you're playing, great. If you're finding it difficult to beat the AI, though, one hint is to not invest in population growth (no using Builder charges for farms, etc.)
 

NegativeZero

Warlord
Joined
Mar 29, 2017
Messages
260
GS should make the Aqueduct a more attractive option with its drought resistance, but only in cities that don't have a river nearby and can build a Dam.

As I'm thinking about it, I wonder if having a Lake adjacent to the city center should provide the same drought resistance as a Dam. Kinda silly if a man-made lake helps you but a larger natural one doesn't.

That dust storm in the Canadian gameplay video was gigantic! It surely could pillage 3/4 of a city(s) tiles which could cost more production than an aqueduct. However, I agree that few cities will find the time or want to build them even in GS. Maybe if they tied into power generation I could see them working out as an alternative.

I'm not sure about natural lakes or even dams providing resistance to dust storms or droughts. Even with lakes, dams, and reservoirs over here the southwest region of the US still burns during fire season, restricts water usage during droughts, and gets "pillaged" by dust-storms.
 

AriochIV

Colonial Ninja
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
5,963
Location
Nehwon
That dust storm in the Canadian gameplay video was gigantic! It surely could pillage 3/4 of a city(s) tiles which could cost more production than an aqueduct. However, I agree that few cities will find the time or want to build them even in GS. Maybe if they tied into power generation I could see them working out as an alternative.

I'm not sure about natural lakes or even dams providing resistance to dust storms or droughts. Even with lakes, dams, and reservoirs over here the southwest region of the US still burns during fire season, restricts water usage during droughts, and gets "pillaged" by dust-storms.
That was actually a Drought in the Canada gameplay video. I don't believe we've seen a Dust Storm yet. They're two different things.
 

NegativeZero

Warlord
Joined
Mar 29, 2017
Messages
260
My mistake!

Thank you for correcting me. It kinda looked like a dust storm to me from the graphics.
 

JimGrumpypants

Chieftain
Joined
Dec 8, 2018
Messages
13
I *usually* build an aquaduct if I was unable to settle with fresh water. If possible, I prefer fresh water because it is a slog to get the aquaduct produced.

But then I also like to grow my cities as large as possible.
 

tedhebert

Emperor
Joined
Aug 6, 2016
Messages
1,398
Location
Montreal, Canada
One of the hardest things to get one's head around in Civ 6, if you've played other versions of civ, is that you don't need to grow your population in Civ 6. Therefore, anything that provides housing and only housing is of little to no benefit in terms of winning.

A city with no water is just fine. That doesn't impact the productivity of it's districts and buildings in the least.

Of course, you may well want to grow your cities as big as possible, as that's always been something one wanted to do in past versions of civ and it seems sort of wrong to not keep doing it. If you're having fun and enjoying whatever level you're playing, great. If you're finding it difficult to beat the AI, though, one hint is to not invest in population growth (no using Builder charges for farms, etc.)

While what you write here is technically true, it DOES happen sometimes than you want to play a peaceful game and there is limited room to spam cities. When that happens, you'll want to grow your cities pop to be able to build more districts. But even then, honestly, there will usually be better options
than then aqueduct, so...
 
Joined
Feb 7, 2018
Messages
2,959
While what you write here is technically true, it DOES happen sometimes than you want to play a peaceful game and there is limited room to spam cities. When that happens, you'll want to grow your cities pop to be able to build more districts. But even then, honestly, there will usually be better options
than then aqueduct, so...

Yes, a lot of my comments on this and similar topics could come with a lengthy "except when …" list. There are exceptions to almost any general rule of thumb when playing a game as complex as Civ.
 

NukeAJS

King
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
850
To me, it's not that aqueducts are bad. To me, the problem is the opportunity cost of building them. Aqueducts are expensive for what they provide. If they were cheaper, they'd be a better choice.

And when settling a city, the only time to consider building an aqueduct is to connect it to a mountain. All the other possible connections (oasis, river, lake) really beg the question -- why not settle one tile over? You'll get the same bonus as an aqueduct while spending zero production. If you've settled a fresh water city, then +2 housing is a terrible thing to spend your production on. There are so many better options.

Anyways -- to answer your question ... when there's a good city spot and I want a large city and there are only mountains nearby. That's when I build an aqueduct.
 

JJOne

Prince
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
402
Very rare, because it is expensive and it costs one tile. In the current game I conquered an AI city ideal for Chichen itza, but without river. If I get the wonder, I will build an aqueduct to work as many of those jungle tiles as possible.
 

Josephias

Emperor
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
1,207
To me, it's not that aqueducts are bad. To me, the problem is the opportunity cost of building them. Aqueducts are expensive for what they provide. If they were cheaper, they'd be a better choice.

And when settling a city, the only time to consider building an aqueduct is to connect it to a mountain. All the other possible connections (oasis, river, lake) really beg the question -- why not settle one tile over? You'll get the same bonus as an aqueduct while spending zero production. If you've settled a fresh water city, then +2 housing is a terrible thing to spend your production on. There are so many better options..

Perfectly summed up. I think the only reason you may want an aqueduct to such a water source is the space is too thin for two cities, and you want to cover all the terrain with a single one (to avoid other civ settling, i.e.) Other than these very specific cases, you can fit your city normally around the fresh water source without much problem.
 
Top Bottom