I often see it said that one of the downsides of Coastal Cities is that they are less defensible. But is that right? I mean, I guess it must be, because they’re more vulerable to Naval Melee and (more importantly) Naval Ranged which can wreck walls and cities. But... - Assuming a coastal assult, I think it’s also easier to attack invading sea units from your coastal city: you ranged unit can sit in the city centre district and shoot out, and if you have walls you can use you wall’s attack on more ships etc. - That, in turn, makes it harder to get land units up onto shore to seige your city. (Although, I guess if you have city a few tiles in, you can still hit land units once they come onto shore.) - You own defending naval units can withdraw to the city centre to heal if they need to. You can also keep building or buy naval units even if your port gets pillaged. - Naval melee can use rams (nuts, I know), but I think it ends up being less efficient than using them on land. - Relatedly; I find it much easier to avoid my harbours getting pillaged if I have a coastal city with walls and a garrisoned troop or naval melee. - Also relatedly; I think Naval Melee can attack through cliffs. I haven’t properly tested this, but if true I assume it’s a bug. I dont know. Maybe coastal cities are weaker on defence, thats what I always hear, but at least in SP, I wonder if it’s a bit overstated.