Is it worth building aqueducts?

[MrMorph]

Hi there,

I almost never build aqueducts and I'm wondering, if maybe I am missing something about them. The only few times I build them is when

• building a city that is not along river, although in coastal cities I usually don't build it, since they already have small amount of tiles
• playing civ that benefits from it like Rome, or Khmer
• sometimes for eureka

What are your thoughts about them?

 

[Inlex]

The 2 housing is almost never worth it. If you have cities where you gain 4 or 6 housing from the aquaduct, you're either completely desperate for a certain resource or you're building in the wrong locations...

Only ever get aquaducts if I want Angkor Wat.

I think aquaducts would see more use if you could chain them (Which would still make sense if you look at the immersion). A desert city 3 tiles from a water sources would be able to get fresh water this way, though with steep investment. (kind of thinking Ceasar III here)

 

[Mojo85]

I usually build one for Ankor Wat mostly because the AI never builds it

 

[Esperr]

I ussually build it late game to get angor wat for era score because the AI never builds it.

Sometimes i will chop it in the get an envoy.

 

[Datian]

They have indirect bonuses, since they are a district : adjacency bonus, democracy production, etc.
But indeed, their use is quite scarce...

 

[Disgustipated]

I have seen the AI building Angkor Wat now in my games. The new patch supposedly changes the way AI evaluates aqueducts, and they are building them now.

Worth building perhaps if you have a city without fresh water access. But if you have a nearby mountain, I always seem to find myself placing a campus or holy site next to it, leaving the aqueduct option off the table. My Georgia game I started on the coast with no river, but my holy site would have blocked the aqueduct location (if I recall correctly, it's possible the mountain was 3 tiles away making aqueduct unbuildable). Although ideally you can buy enough tiles to put the campus or holy site on the side of the mountain, but in the early game money to buy tiles can be rough.

 

[kaspergm]

There is a mod that makes them more useful by adding some buildings to them (including the sewer) which adds some more housing, amenities and bonus to growth. The mod itself is a bit overpowered, but I use a toned-down version, and that makes it pretty balanced. I agree aqueducts as they are in the main game are very disappointing.

 

[Disgustipated]

I used to use that mod, if it's the same one you are referring to, also adds water treatment plants. It's nice to be able to grow some pretty big cities.

 

[acluewithout]

After aqueducts got discounted in one of the past patches, I find I do build them sometimes, and not just for the Eureka.

I sometimes build them in cities with high production and high food, because they would benefit from the extra housing and also count as a district for adjacencies and cards. For example, I might have a city with a campus in the mountains, and then theatre district next to the city centre. So, I might build the aqueduct next to the city centre and TD to give the TD a +1 (in addition to the housing boost).

They also often feature in petra cities, as these do have plenty of food but no farms for housing.

And frankly, I sometimes just build them just so my cities have more sprawl / look cooler.

But I'm sure building them is not efficient, e.g., given you can get housing from farms and other districts.

 

[UWHabs]

For the +2 housing, definitely not worth wasting a useful tile for. Sometimes I'll build it for another city that I had to place in the middle of nowhere, but I've found that even there, you can get enough housing by other means. Like, my last game as Korea, I had a city with no fresh water at all get up to size 13 or so by the end of the game without a neighbourhood, sewer, or aqueduct. +4 housing from governors, +4 housing from New Deal, +2 from a granary, another few housing from barracks/university/etc.. and it adds up.

Maybe I should build them more - I mean, for a city with no freshwater, it's basically the equivalent of a "charming" neighbourhood, which I'd certainly build later on. But it's not quite enough of a benefit to want to use my production on that. Maybe Liang should have a promotion with a bonus to aqueducts or something?

 

[pgm123]

If I settle a city without freshwater in order to get a resource, I might put an aqueduct there. It's at least partially for the eureka, though.

The problem is if I'm near enough to a river to want to build the aqueduct, I'm going to do everything I can to settle the river. If I'm near a mountain, I'd rather use the mountain for a campus or holy site. I also don't find housing that useful except in some core cities.

 

[Tabarnak]

Useful for the eureka mostly. I play mp and the game pace is slower so i often have time to put one in queue before i get construction.

Under R&F it's kinda useful if you use Magnus in capital to obtain fast growth and huge city early.

 

[Bad Wolf]

They're worth it if you're Rome; the +1 amenity is really nice, and 2 extra housing is pretty good. Otherwise not so much.

If you do have a city without a source of fresh water for whatever reason (bad start location, strategic military location, grabbing resources, etc.) then yes they are usually worth it.

 

[dunkleosteus]

If I was designing the aqueduct, I wouldn't have made it a district. It doesn't function like a district. Rome didn't treat it as a district and the "city" aspect of it was inside the city.

Aqueducts are long, carefully engineered channels for carrying water from a spring (or later, a river, but this brought you contaminated water) to your city. The familiar tall, bridge-like structure we know was actually not very common, only used when absolutely necessary. The majority of the aqueduct was built underground when possible. Aqueducts were the lifeblood of a city (providing the clean drinking water that enabled hundreds of thousands of people to coexist before flush toilets) and so they were a huge weakness. Engineers would hide aqueducts underground, placing maintenance entrances every so often (I think every quarter mile, though I can't remember) hidden by vegetation or the local terrain. The hatches were necessary because sediment coming from the ground would form thick coatings of calcite which would eventually obstruct the flow of water. The aqueducts were hidden to prevent them being knocked down by the enemy or contaminated (I believe there were a few examples of enemy parties finding an aqueduct and defecating into it). Because aqueducts use gravity, it was important that the water source was higher than the destination and that you didn't drop the water level below the city's elevation. When they encountered a gulley or valley, the most common solution was to build a reverse siphon: lead pipes would carry the water downhill where it would pressurize before being lifted back uphill at the other side. Due to friction in the pipe, they'd lose 10% of the height compared to bridging across the gap, so they only formed the familiar bridge structures when necessary (usually because they couldn't afford to lose the height). When it reached the city, the water would fill a cistern at the edge of the city which would redistribute it through three channels: one channel fed the private homes which had constant running water day and night, as well as the public fountains which poorer people used for washing, drinking and cooking; another would be directed toward the public baths which nearly every Roman used daily; and the last channel would feed the arena. The Romans would flood their arenas with water and bring boats into them to reenact naval battles for spectators to watch. Without a true sewage system, the water in the city was pressurized only by the difference in height between the cistern and the rest of the city. Because of this, it could not be shut off and all fountains and private taps ran constantly. The runoff water was used to carry sewage and waste out of the city.

The point I'm trying to make here is that the aqueduct itself was not a large structure. It was around 2 meters wide and usually invisible. They were hidden to keep the city safe. They were not centers of growth or business. They existed outside the city in the countryside. They may even pass right through farmland or orchards or pastures. Basically, they weren't an active part of the city except WITHIN the city.

If I was designing aqueducts, I'd design them like the road. They'd connect the city in a roughly straight line (accounting for terrain) to a water source with a higher elevation. They would not obstruct any tiles; you could put farms on top of them or beneath them, or any other structure (other than a district). They could be pillaged by the enemy at any point to hurt your city (but they'd be mostly invisible to enemies).

 

[iammaxhailme]

The AI seems to love aqueducts since R&F

I, however, almost never make them

 

[unpossible251]

I'll often give it a go. I regularly play as Australia and take advantage of the coastal bonus to make a Natural Wonder workable. As long as there's a river, mountain or oasis close by, you can plonk a settler and start the aqueduct, and use a builder to develop a few tiles right away. Your housing bonus plus the tiles means youre on, maybe, 4 housing for the duration of the aqueduct costruct. Once the aqueduct is completed - which shouldn't be too long as long as youre mid game (speed it up with a good trade route) will set you up with a very nice city.

 

[conorbebe]

Unless you have no source of fresh water, no unfortunately. They really need a buff to be worth taking up a tile adjacent to your City Center.

 

[Art Morte]

Yeah, I build them when I don't have fresh water. Being able to get fresh water from a mountain tile is nice sometimes. And occasionally I settle one tile away from a river or lake if the location of the city makes more sense that way.

 

[Athmos]

You can sometime make nice use of them for adjacency purpose (stronger of course for Japan as usual).

 

[acluewithout]

I’d never really thought before how aqueducts could interact with policy cards. They are after all a cheap district which aren’t subject to population limits.

Potential synergies I can see:

- Medina Quarter - +2 housing with three districts. Similarly, Lineralism, Insulae, New Deal

- Any of the double your adjacency cards (if you’ve used the aqueduct to boost adjacency if another district).

- Meritocracy - +1 culture per district.

Aqueducts might also synergise with Democracy (+1 housing per district). They also synergise with some Golden Age dedications - Paint, Brush and Voice; and Reform the Coinage.

Being an additional district, building one should also boosts your citie’s defence.