Ever been landlocked?

Monkeyfinger

Deity
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
2,002
(For the unaware, landlocked means having no direct access to the ocean.)

I was digging through some old posts and saw the occasional one about how if you pick Willem, Hannibal or Joao and get landlocked, you're in a bad spot. This got me thinking: Can this hypothetical situation even happen?

I play on Emperor and I hate coastal capitals to the point of regenerating my map whenever my settler starts by the ocean. Yet, I have never, ever been denied access to coast. Short of playing on a map type that doesn't even use oceans, like Lakes, I can't imagine it ever happening. Am I wrong?
 
I was very close to being landlocked in my last game. I had to get a settler out sharpish and move it bloody miles from my capital and grab a spot between 2 AI. I would hate to be landlocked, I like at least a couple of coastal cities. Dont think ive had a coastal capital in any of my games so far but i wouldnt mind it if i had some resources
 
Landlocked in civ just means that you start away from the coast..... it's really difficult to find a game where you cannot expand to any coastline. I've had it once (playing on a modded larger than Huge map) - but even then I could have expanded to one coastline had I wanted to, it's just that the other way was more juicy.
 
its nearly imposible... easy on just settle your second or third city there...but even then most starting positions are by rivers which are generally by the coast.
 
In Warlords, I wouldn't care about developing a Navy of any kind until later stages when I'd need to build a fleet for an amphib invasion of someone. It never bothered me to not have ocean access, I could focus more on my armies and cities without wasting gold, hammers and time on ships. Borders were larger and harder to defend, but it was a trade-off I was willing to make.

Now, in BtS, I find myself developing a small Navy to keep those pesky AIs from landing Normandy-style on my shores and ruining my day. In fact, I had just created a 3 battleship/3 carrier/5+destroyer escort force for my invasion fleet when I suddenly up and won a Cultural Victory! My first win in BtS to boot!
 
One of my more difficult games I got to be "Ragnar of the Jungle." I was on a river in the jungle, right in the middle of a kind of a continent. I managed to spread east and west to the coasts, but ended up with only 2 coastal cities.
 
I built my capital on what I thought was the coast, but it turned out to be a lake. That meant no ocean port construction was available -- no big ships, though workboats could be built. I built two more cities on the lake and a canal to access the ocean, but the cities were never qualified as true ocean access.

Generally, it isn't a bad thing to be landlocked. But having a city with lots of water squares be effectively landlocked for production is a hassle.
 
(For the unaware, landlocked means having no direct access to the ocean.)

I was digging through some old posts and saw the occasional one about how if you pick Willem, Hannibal or Joao and get landlocked, you're in a bad spot. This got me thinking: Can this hypothetical situation even happen?

I play on Emperor and I hate coastal capitals to the point of regenerating my map whenever my settler starts by the ocean. Yet, I have never, ever been denied access to coast. Short of playing on a map type that doesn't even use oceans, like Lakes, I can't imagine it ever happening. Am I wrong?

You're not exactly wrong.

I think the answer is not anymore, but it used to happen occaissionally. I seem to remember it happening to me in CIV IV sometime before the introduction of Joao and Willem.
I thought they made a code change sometime ( BTS? One of the Warlords patches?) so that "seafaring " civs wouldn't draw a starting location more than 5 squares from the coast, or something similar to that.
 
One of my cultural wins with Gandhi I was totally landlocked in the middle of a bunch of civs. It was quite different. I had access to a lake in the middle of the continent(a very large lake, I guess a sea in real life terms) but it was all fresh water with no access to any ocean.
 
I'm never landlocked, but one time I only had 2 coastal cities and I got the harbourmaster quest and there was no more room in my empire to expand on the coast and then I reached the Industrial era a few turns later...
 
I'd say any civ with fishing as a starting tech who doesn't start on a coast is also in a bad spot.

As far as being landlocked goes...

I've started inland plenty of times but always managed to get at least one coastal city. I'm fond of amphibious invasions so I always make it a point to have coastal access as soon as possible.
 
Happened to me as Joao, huge terra and started in the middle of a continent with ai's all around me, had to axe rush Boudica for the coast.
 
I've been landlocked in a Terra map game before. Naturally, I was able to win access to the coast with the aid of large stacks of Axemen.
 
I play on small maps so it's impossible. Maybe if you play bigger maps and pick pick the "Pangea" option.

Cities built on the coast get to build Harbors (up to +3 health bonus) and they get better trade routes. There is usually some food source(s) out on the water that will be pretty useful.

Without fish you can't build Sid's Sushi, the most powerful corporation in the game and the key to getting an easy cultural victory.

And you need coastal cities to build ships. Why do you need ships? Transport across the water, protect your fishing spots, take out enemy fishing spots, bombard enemy cities, floating base for Fighters.

If you play on maps without oceans, you're really missing out on half the game.
 
I was landlocked on a Standard Hemispheres map before. Got stuck with a capital too close to the coast to fit another city, and there were no good coastal sites that I could pick up before my neighbours.
 
Top Bottom