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 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
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
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 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.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.
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...
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..