How important is it to have at least one coastal city?

[Mame yo]

Hey guys, this is my first post but I've been reading these forums for a couple of months now and after starting at prince difficulty I'm now playing at immortal, so thanks for that; this place has been invaluable in speeding the learning curve.

So anyway, my question is in the title. I'm going for a science victory on a standard continents map and doing so with a tradition 4 city opener seems like the sweet spot IMO so that's what I like to do. I settled my capital on a hill next to a mountian range and river with jungle to the west and grass/plains to the east. 2 citrus. Perfect science set up. My second city was placed on a hill - also next to a mountain and river - in desert/flood plains area, and it has 2 ivory, 1 marble and 1 stone. Building Petra. Super awesome. Third city is ALSO placed next to a mountain and river with jungle, gold and sugar. Again, I'm pleased.

when I went to place my 4th city I realized I didn't have a harbor city and set about making that a priority... However, I couldn't find any good coastal spots near my territory, so I save and quit. Came back to my game today and in typical airheaded fashion I set my city next to another jungle/mountain/river spot instead; one that (once borders grow) will have 4 spices and a Gem resource - a superior placement if I wasn't in need of a harbor city.

So how important is that Harbor? Is it worth building another city for? I realize i cant scout my continent, but I've found 3 other civs and a few CS's already to trade with... Is that sufficient for early-mid game until other civs find me? Also, I won't be able to connect resources to CSs on different continents without a harbor... How important is it really?

It is pretty cool, though, that I managed to get 4 mountain/hill/river cities - 3 with jungle and 1 with desert for Petra.

 

[Pazyryk]

I've been arguing on another thread where I think that most posters are seriously underrating coastal cities. However, you can win without one, and it might be the right decision (for Science Victory) in this case.

Continents Map? Assuming yes, and if you had gone the other way, you would have:

1. 1 crappy city instead of a good one
2. a shot at being host for world body (but so what? not important here)
3. probably more gold generation allowing more rush-buys, RAs and CS alliances (you won't even meet many CSs now)

Hard to say which one wins in that comparison. The main power of coastal cities in early/mid game is food and production, and you can't do that with only 1 coastal city anyway. A great coastal city can bring in huge amounts of gpt in late game, but a crappy one probably not. So I'd say you made the right decision.

 

[dnrojas7]

By having at least 1 coastal city can create sea trade routes, particularly with civs and city-states on other continents. Sea trade routes tend to earn more gpt than caravans.

There are a few wonders (Great Lighthouse, Sydney Opera house, Colossus) that can only built in a coastal city.

If happen to gain a city (settling, capture,trade or culture flip) on another continent/island can create city connection with harbors.

With a coastal city can potentially gain access to coastal oil resource tiles

 

[joshua43214]

For continents map, a coastal city is good but not mandatory by any stretch for a science victory.

One of the things you did right was settle a mountain. When I play continents I make mountains a higher priority than I do in Pangaea. You need to get the sailing techs up sooner than optimal in a continents map, so having mountains synergies nicely with getting sailing techs.

I also try to settle a jungle city as an expo, ya they start slow hammer wise, but a river/mountain/jungle expo city get very nice, just have 3-4 workers just for that city and it will get up and going well enough.

On Pangaea when going for an SV, I avoid any but prime coastal cities. The type that have a very narrow inlet and can be defended with a very minimal navy. Making an army in an SV is enough of a waste of hammers, having to make an army and a navy is just flat out counter productive and can easily outweigh all the benefits of a coastal city.

 

[MikeIII the 2nd]

You must have one for the following reasons: These cities allow you to build naval units, a MUST for any intercontinental attacks. Cargo ships: as these yield lots of money, you will need this to help you economy. Sea based wonders: Colossus, Sydney Opera House, and others. Any other coastal unique traits.

 

[MarshalN]

I think it depends on your situation. In my current continents game only one other civ is on my continent. If I don't build a coastal city I'll have to wait for others to find me, which isn't a great idea.

 

[casualplayer]

I'm personally a big fan of coastal cities because of Cargo Ships and Floating Cannon (Galleas.) But ocean access is not enough reason to drop a Settler. If you really need one, conquer someone else's city or a City-State.

 

[Shalvan]

Guys, stop writing about sea trade routes when the title CLEARLY says : GODS AND KINGS.

 

[vorlon_mi]

Standard continents map means that there will be another big land mass, with at least 3 Civs on it. One of them has the potential to become a runaway, and challenge you for your science victory.

If you have no coastal city, as MikeIII stated, you can't build a navy. Which means you can't build naval escorts for any troops you might want to send to the other continent, to invade.

My advice (caveat: I play a lower difficulty than Immortal) is that you keep an eye on the demographics view, and keep an eye on whoever is leading in science if it isn't you. You may need to pay someone to start a war over there, to slow things down. Consider building nukes, to use as a last resort.

BTW, has anyone tried an intercontinental invasion with no naval escorts?

 

[troublmaker]

It's not that important in the game. It is REALLY important in Brave New World but not as important in Gods and Kings. The only really big thing is the navy. The navy is what wins most wars and is a bastion against foreign invaders. But if you are a land locked nation running around with enough artillery power and raw infantry you can overcome this disadvantage fine.

 

[joshua43214]

BTW, has anyone tried an intercontinental invasion with no naval escorts?

yep, do it when ever I play a continents map and have no coastal cities. I won't settle a coastal just for the sake of having one. Sending an invasion fleet over water is no big deal in BNW, you just need a place to land and stage from. Get open borders from someone (you should have open borders with every one anyway), and land you junk.

No biggie.

 

[MarshalN]

BTW, has anyone tried an intercontinental invasion with no naval escorts?

Yeah, I did. It can still work but way less effective. You really need the frigates to help bomb coastal cities. I was an era ahead and took some cities but when they build in tricky places you take a lot of damage just trying to land

 

[kb27787]

in GNK? Not at all If you can't get at least 6+ sea resources don't bother making your capitol coastal. Coastal cities were pretty bad in GnK; the water tiles are just a waste of space.

 

[Deau]

Yeah in GnK I'd say don't bother at all as well.


In BnW, I typically only go coastal for non domination games if I can get at least 2 decent coastal cities. Double internal trade routes(food) + having a coastal gold hub for international cargo ships is worth it to me. However, just taking an average coastal single city instead of a better non coastal spot I wouldn't

 

[Syailendra]

you already have 4 cities on mountains. Forget coastal for awhile, and tech fast to coal, alum, and oil. Then you can decide your 5th city placement in a better pov. Building a new coastal city for offshore oil source is a good idea.

 

[JeSuisNapoleon]

I agree with most of what said so far, in GnK you dont need a coastal city unless you are playing continents or archipelago. Even then, if your all setup for a Science win you might not need one at all. Slowly opening up the map with two scouts could take a long time though. You might want one later for the Sydney Opera house. I usualy conquer a CS or AI city for that, I do it late midevil and let the puppet gold farm for a while until I decide its time to take over (read: after building some national wonders).

in fact, I tend to puppet everything until I have the three or four critical national wonders built, then expand / annex as needed.

On the subject of intercontinent invasions without a navy, I found the best trategy was to include a settler and plant a little troll city on the landing site to give me some friendly territory. Obviously, this will often be a coastal city Coupled with a GG and an army, this is a great way to punch into the Enemy lands. Not always an option though.