Are coastal cities as good as landlocked cities?

gingerbill

Prince
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
335
I've always avoided coastal cities in CIV5 as it seems they would always be worse than landlocked cities . If half the cities borders are on the sea surely those tiles just arent as good as a well placed landlocked city?

A sea tile with no luxury on it gives 2F2G later on in the game? I would always prefer farms near a river or hills with a mine .

Am i missing something ? or are coastal cities good? I find myself playing culture voctories with only a few cities so i wouldnt want to place a coastal city if there plenty of good land to claim/steal .

Should i consider coastal cities inferior unless they happen to have lots of luxury sea tiles?
 
Generally I like to have at least 2 sea resources, and preferably 3. Otherwise there's just not enough food to make it work. Non-resource ocean tiles are pretty garbage unless you have the Colussus. Or, sometimes there is a special circumstance, like I need a port to build a navy, or a culture city to build the Syndey Opera House in.
 
That is fine. You have 36 tiles to work. Very few cities will grow to 18 pop.
 
Well coastal cities aren't that bad because normally you won't work all of your citys tiles anyway. And you will need some boats unless on a Pangea.

You shouldn't really work sea tiles unless you have colossus or your city is so big you have no specialist spots left and you have loads of spare :c5happy:. Sea tlles can support 1 pop for science and get a gold, that's it really.

Harbours make trade networks though so more pop gives more trade. Maybe it's worth it if you get Machu Pichu and a massive capital for trade route gold.

With many coastal cities you might want to go commerce then they get strong. e.g. England with commerce with Colossus on archipelago = boss mode.
 
I've always avoided coastal cities in CIV5 as it seems they would always be worse than landlocked cities . If half the cities borders are on the sea surely those tiles just arent as good as a well placed landlocked city?

A sea tile with no luxury on it gives 2F2G later on in the game? I would always prefer farms near a river or hills with a mine .

Am i missing something ? or are coastal cities good? I find myself playing culture voctories with only a few cities so i wouldnt want to place a coastal city if there plenty of good land to claim/steal .

Should i consider coastal cities inferior unless they happen to have lots of luxury sea tiles?

That's funny because I always make a bee-line right to the coast because I prefer coastal cities to landlocked ones. The best is a coastal city on a river, next to a lake, on a hill, next to a mountain and a desert. Seriously, that has never happened to me before, but I think it could happen.

Coastal cities can give you a massive military advantage with the Navy in this game. I use my Navy and (later on) Air Force almost exclusively when waging war. Then again, I tend to play continents or islands or something else where water comes into play.
 
Well, with most specialist spots filled late game even with 40 pop you should have only about 25 tiles to work. If your playing continents/pangea it is unlikely that you have half of your tile sea. Anyways, the advantage of costal cities (cheaper trade routes, ships) far outweighs the negatives.
 
What if redundant trade routes (harbor after road or road after harbor) gave a 1 gold bonus to trade route?
 
Landlocked cities seem better.

This was one of my gripes with coastal cities. In Civ4, normal sea tiles were OK (with a lighthouse) and even better as financial (2f 3g). Now, they just suck in Civ5 unless you have colossus, then they're only decent.
 
depends whats around as already stated you rarely get cities that utilise all tiles. the seaport can gain extra production. if you have 3 plus fish pearls or wales but this is rare anyway.

Have had it before though.

I love to be on the coast though not really for the coastal cities but because i like to only have to worry about my border on one or two fronts been in the middle when i have four or five on one wars is just not nice.
 
Coastal cities are pretty good, +3 production from commerce in new cities is amazing if not quite as op as it used to be because of the seaport nerf. They take a bit more effort now but generally are pretty ok. Also, ships are frighteningly efficient at bombarding cities.
 
Sea is fine; generic sea will be low priority to actually work, but between few cities actually reaching size 36 and by then a lot of specialist slots if you want to work something else.

The fish will get you 5f as you as you get a work boat and light house. It will quickly provide a hammer as well with a Harbor. If you want, you can get a second hammer out of it later on, but your probably only building that Sea Port if you intend on building a factory.

Generic grassland away from freshwater actually isn't that much better.
 
Depends on the resource clumping. I find the availability of three fish more common than the availability of three Wheat. With three sea resources, the Lighthouse gives out an astonishing 6 food for 1 gold, easily enough to feed the city through its early growth, while working production tiles. The tile sac means they won't grow as eventually powerful as an all-land, no shared-tile city, but I've never found occasion to make sense of that arrangement. Most of the time, my cities have some overlap anyway, so sea cities aren't inherently worse, so long as they have the Resources.

A Riverside or Lakeside site is easier to leverage quickly, but those sites run out fast.
 
It depends on what I need. I like a mix of landlocked and a few seaports. The seaports can provide a needed boost in gold. Add in a two (or hopefully three) fish resources, a lighthouse, harbor, the entire market line and a good seaport can provide you with some very nice cash flow even working the generic sea hexes.

Most landlocked cities just don't provide that kind of cash flow. But the seaport usually doesn't provide make a great production city.
 
Back
Top Bottom