Coastal cities overrated?

[Colle]

I see a lot of people who think that coastal cities are great.

Personally, I try to avoid coast because i really think cities builded along the coast are waste ->very low productive (2 food ( no surplus food! and must have a harbour!!), no shield until late, late, late game).
Coastal cities can build ships and transports, OK. But I'm the kind of player that likes to play pangea large map and dont use naval warfare very often: i think war can only be won with ground units and ships arent that important on pangea and EVEN continents ( you dont need that much ships to win, just stacked transports/ships is enought. ( i play deity and demi god, random civ)

What do you think of coastal cities, and establishing cities along the coast? Do you like having a starting location along the coast when you play high difficulty level ( demi god and above ) ?
Let's talk about that please

 

[vmxa]

I do not care for a costal start. This is because you will not have a centrally located palace.

I do like coastal cities, but I do not love them. Those cities can be used to generate gold, especially the corrupt ones. Put that second citizen on tax and the city on wealth. You gain the support and the gold. Build no structures at all.

I like to make my second or third city a coastal one to get that curragh out the door. I don't care what the level or the type of map. I do it at sid and I would do it if was to play a chief game. The boats can circumnavigate the land faster than your warrior and can reach land masses otherwise not available. I want those contacts.

 

[Abaddon]

They are the cash cows that power my capitalist empire i love them! They never need to produce anything.. jus sit there topping up your piggly bank... They pay back the cost of a measly settler many many times over in the end

 

[Colle]

Good point.
Good to scout with curragh.
But between a city with 21 squares on flood plains, moutain w/ gold or iron, grass and several bonus ressources, and a coastal city, everyone take the first one

 

[Abaddon]

of course.. unless your going for a cultural victory...

 

[Abaddon]

You have to realise noone likes coastal citys for their production.. its merely the money gains/claiming land that they do for little cost. They are never meant to be your major cities....

 

[Tomoyo]

It's the cities one tile away from the coast that bother me. They can't build harbours to get the extra food from the ocean.

 

[Colle]

in average, coastal cities generate just a little bit more gold than continental cities dont they?
continental cities may have roads and rivers + more production ( means faster markets, banks, courthouses) AND they can get extra bonus with ressources such as gold, gems, ivory, etc.

thats why if i can build 2 tiles from the coast to have a city with 21 "dry" tiles, i settle there instead of next to the coast.

And youre right i never ever build cities 1 tile from the coast that is so annoying having some unworkable squares. If i capture a city 1 tile from the coast, i raze it for sure unless only 1 or two tiles are unworkable...

 

[SJ Frank]

Is there any reason not to settle those coastal cities?

If two civs managed to claim the same amount of land, but while one civ only uses the land tiles, and the other civ founded 3 or 4 extra cities to work all the water tiles, which civ is stronger?

Water tiles are still good tiles. Sometimes the money that they make can be the difference between winning and losing. Coastal tiles are especially good at generating commerce. I always plan my city sites such that no “valuable” tiles are wasted, and coastal tiles count as “valuable” tiles.

 

[Colle]

in average, coastal cities generate just a little bit more gold than continental cities dont they?
continental cities may have roads and rivers + more production ( means faster markets, banks, courthouses) AND they can get extra bonus with ressources such as gold, gems, ivory, etc. means lots of money

thats why if i can build 2 tiles from the coast to have a city with 21 "dry" tiles, i settle there instead of next to the coast.

And youre right i never ever build cities 1 tile from the coast that is so annoying having some unworkable squares. If i capture a city 1 tile from the coast, i raze it for sure unless only 1 or two tiles are unworkable ( that you cant road or mine or... ) ...

Thanks everyone for posting let's debate !!

 

[Colle]

of course i use all tiles, which means that i DO build along the coast but i think these cities are much less useful than the other continental cities, so i try to settle more cities in the continent than along the coast
i never let an AI approach and settle my land

 

[Ivan the Kulak]

What is needed is to have a couple more improvements in the industrial age to ramp up food/shield production for coastal cities, maybe in civ4. Seafood Cannery, multiple oil derricks (offshore platform) would be good ideas.

 

[DBear]

Coastal cities are good for explorations with curraghs, but I'd rather have the capital in an interior city.

 

[SJ Frank]

I agree that coastal cities are less valuable than land cities… well, at least in a normal game. Sometimes the map generator will throw you a curve. It will strand you on a small island, or in artic tundra, or in a dry plain start with no fresh water in sight, that’s when every single city should be coastal. But in a normal game, yeah, the coastal cities are on the bottom of the list during expansion phase… well, except for the curragh city.

Are coastal cities much less useful than continental cities? Not to me at least.

Most coastal cities can borrow tiles from continental cities during their early development, because the continental cities aren’t large enough to use all of its tiles yet.

In a peaceful building game, the purpose of shields is to use it to generate more gold. Coastal cities’ lack of shields hurt them somewhat, but not significantly.

In a warmongering game, early wars are fought with smaller cities, so tile borrowing makes coastal cities just as productive. During later wars, the commerce generated by coastal cities are very important in rushing units, rushing building, and playing the diplomatic game. The ability to sign up an extra ally or two is more valuable than the ability to produce an extra unit or two.

thats why if i can build 2 tiles from the coast to have a city with 21 "dry" tiles, i settle there instead of next to the coast.

That I don’t agree with . In that situation, I would settle the dry city 3 tiles from the coast, leaving room for a coastal city.

 

[Colle]

You're right SJ Frank 3 tiles from the coast is better
that way we can exploit sea for money

thank you for replying everyone
now i consider coastal cities better than before

 

[Aegis]

Personally, I will only settle a core city on the coast in two different scenarios: 1) The "good" land is cramped, or 2) there are whales out in the ocean.

 

[Lord Parkin]

I settle cities everywhere, continental or coast!!! But it's true that my (very) early focus is on the continental cities, because in the (very) early game they're much better for production etc. However, coastal cities become a heck of a lot more useful as soon as Harbours become available, so after that time I consider them to be just as useful as continental cities.

By the way, having a coastal city doesn't necessarily mean that there won't be nice resources and land around, just that there's less chance of it.

 

[Rambuchan]

You're forgetting that the Seafaring trait delivers one extra commerce on all coastal squares. This makes coastal cities HUGE cash cows if the relevant improvements are installed - market places, banks, stock exchange and commercial dock - don't forget the offshore platform also. I've had Amsterdam slapped on a coastal river site churning me out 95 science beakers per turn (on 70% sci) only just after building a University in it ie. middle of the middle ages. If this is turned to producing cash for the treasury you can see how it will greatly help rush buying more military. The commercial power of coastal squares cannot be underestimated. Why don't people complain about inland cities, lying on hills nowhere and near a river, failing to deliver enough cash or science?

For non seafarers coastal is still good and not only for the aforementioned ability to build curraghs for early exploration and the commercial advantages. A coastal city can be a vital attack or defence tool on a landmass separate to your continental heartland where you might meet competition. Riding your ships straight into the city and waking up your transported units to ride along the roads all in the same turn is a vital warring tool. Such an island or detached contintent would be so much harder to defend or attack if you didn't have coastal cities to sail into. You would be forced to land your troops on an otherwise vulnerable tile, leaving them open to attack and also having to wait a full turn before they may be employed.

Sorry, I don't agree with any of the statements against coastal cities.

 

[bonscott]

Coastal cities are just fine. Early on I always try to get at least one city on any coast I have. That way I can poop out Battleships in both directions later on. With Harbor and a few hills nearby or on a river delta you'll get both a pretty productive city and a lot of commerce.

Basically cities are cities and you take what you can get.

 

[PaperBeetle]

Why don't people complain about inland cities, lying on hills nowhere and near a river, failing to deliver enough cash or science?

Simply because commerce is handled communally while food and shields are handled locally, poor commerce performance is less noticeable.
Having said that, I do often come to build a bank or uni in an inland city and find the place is only doing something like six commerce per turn
So no, I don't begrudge coastal cities.