Nerfing the coast is just annoying

[Victoria]

So before GS the coast was not the most productive place to be. You also need granaries a lot of the time.
Now with global warming we are forced to spam science to get get barriers up, an added expense for what value?
Then hurricanes happen which you cannot even protect yourself against. 1 turn pillage all your districts and buildings stuff. I guess it only happens rarely but it is pretty devastating and seriously nerfs the coast.
Anyone else tired of the bad bias of the coast?
EDIT: The proof of this nerf is Here

 

[Tech Osen]

Then hurricanes happen which you cannot even protect yourself against.

Liang.

Other environmental thingies can also be quite damaging land inwards. But I do agree that the game doesn't really mirror the advantage coastal cities have. Though would you consider cities like London, Amsterdam or Hamburg coastal cities? All their harbors are connected by broad rivers, something that also isn't possible in the game.

 

[Uberfrog]

I think I've had far more damaging terrestrial disasters than coastal ones. I don't think I've lost more than a couple of tiles to hurricanes, whereas droughts and floods have caused me much more pain. I also avoid building anything too important on coastal lowlands (which don't seem all that common anyway).

 

[Kaan Boztepe]

till you get to seasteds or windmills , there are no improvements to water tiles , which makes me wonder. did humanity settle on the coast in the last decade?
why do we still not have wandering fishing boats , out of territory oil rigs, why dont we have some kind of tourisms attached to islands?

 

[acluewithout]

Anyone else tired of the bad bias of the coast?
View attachment 521547

Yes.

Liang.

Other environmental thingies can also be quite damaging land inwards. But I do agree that the game doesn't really mirror the advantage coastal cities have. Though would you consider cities like London, Amsterdam or Hamburg coastal cities? All their harbors are connected by broad rivers, something that also isn't possible in the game.

This is what annoys me about Govenors. I'd like more than one Reyna Coastal City. More than one Liang Coastal City.

Why can I only have one?

 

[Sagax]

I think I've had far more damaging terrestrial disasters than coastal ones. I don't think I've lost more than a couple of tiles to hurricanes, whereas droughts and floods have caused me much more pain. I also avoid building anything too important on coastal lowlands (which don't seem all that common anyway).

My experience as well. By far floods have been the most frequent source of destruction and annoyance.

 

[Victoria]

droughts and floods have caused me much more pain.

You can stop these, that picture does not show the loss of fisheries or population. Damn cat6 hurricanes

 

[MrRadar]

So before GS the coast was not the most productive place to be. You also need granaries a lot of the time.
Now with global warming we are forced to spam science to get get barriers up, an added expense for what value?
Then hurricanes happen which you cannot even protect yourself against. 1 turn pillage all your districts and buildings stuff. I guess it only happens rarely but it is pretty devastating and seriously nerfs the coast.
Anyone else tired of the bad bias of the coast?
View attachment 521547

How symbolic that it is Paris in your illustrating screenshot. The motto of that city – "Fluctuat nec mergitur" – can't be more fitting here. You'll rebuild and bounce back And you have a fabulous harbour there.

Having said that, sea trade routes could be buffed up to what they are in Civ5 - double that of land routes, at least until railroads.
It would also be nice, if damage calculations took the position of the coastal city into account. If the city is in completely open to the ocean - maximum impact, full damage. But if it is tucked somewhere in a protected bay, a bit inland, behind a mountain, damage could be mitigated to some extent.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Liang.

Other environmental thingies can also be quite damaging land inwards. But I do agree that the game doesn't really mirror the advantage coastal cities have. Though would you consider cities like London, Amsterdam or Hamburg coastal cities? All their harbors are connected by broad rivers, something that also isn't possible in the game.

Since land vs sea trade routes is now a thing, I'd like to see navigable rivers make a comeback in civ. At the very least they should act as a railroad as far as calculating TR values go. After all, what is a canal other than an artificial river?

Not sure how a unit movement bonus would work since the rivers are on the border of squares (hexes) now.

 

[Elhoim]

This is what annoys me about Govenors. I'd like more than one Reyna Coastal City. More than one Liang Coastal City.

Why can I only have one?

Because of abstract game rules (and the devs designing and balancing the game around quick speed, small maps settings).

 

[Tech Osen]

I think I've had far more damaging terrestrial disasters than coastal ones. I don't think I've lost more than a couple of tiles to hurricanes, whereas droughts and floods have caused me much more pain. I also avoid building anything too important on coastal lowlands (which don't seem all that common anyway).

That is pretty random. I had some very devastating hurricanes where I had to rebuild the same city three times. Thing is the storms are hard to predict in advance unlike floods or volcanoes. In one game I had a good spot for a Petra city and while I was building it the first major storm hit, so I put Liang in the middle of a desert. Had another 5 storms hit over the course of the game so it was worthwhile.

 

[criZp]

Flood barriers look extremely ugly also. I don't even want them in my cities even if I can build them.

 

[Jkchart]

So before GS the coast was not the most productive place to be. You also need granaries a lot of the time.
Now with global warming we are forced to spam science to get get barriers up, an added expense for what value?
Then hurricanes happen which you cannot even protect yourself against. 1 turn pillage all your districts and buildings stuff. I guess it only happens rarely but it is pretty devastating and seriously nerfs the coast.
Anyone else tired of the bad bias of the coast?
View attachment 521547

I think I've been hit by a hurricane a grand total of once, and it wasn't even a key city.

I believe you though, but it does seem like that's appropriate considering how destructive they are. The barriers SHOULD give some sort of protection from hurricanes though (that's a barrier question), and since they're so rare I wouldn't consider it a super coast nerf, just a slight one.

 

[Tech Osen]

The barriers SHOULD give some sort of protection from hurricanes though (that's a barrier question), and since they're so rare I wouldn't consider it a super coast nerf, just a slight one.

I wonder why hurricanes don't flood coastal lowlands for a couple of turns, then those barriers could protect against that.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

1. Agree with previous Posters, River/Floodplain Floods (and Volcanoes) have been much more persistent Disasters in my games so far. On the other hand, having to 'park' a Builder in a city to almost constantly repair damage is annoying, but certainly not Game Breaking.
2. Even more agree, Civ VI seriously underestimates and under-represents the advantages of coastal positions and especially sea/river Trade Routes.
The major separate advantage of the coast is Food. We've depleted fisheries so much in the last two centuries that we've forgotten just how much quality protein came out of the coastal waters - and fishing a rich set of waters like the North Sea, Baltic Sea, Sea of Japan or Chesapeake Bay, or the Grand Banks off the northeastern American coast was far more reliable than hunting - or even farming, which could be devastated by drought or general bad weather.

And they still have a long way to go to represent the importance of maritime trade. For one thing, as mentioned previously, maritime trade extended far inland over major rivers, but for the second, there was a lot of trade that was Impossible except by water: no overland trade route before railroads could carry enough food to be significant, for instance. If you are trading any industrial (Strategic) goods: Iron, Coal, Niter, you are trading in tons of the stuff, and a pack train simply won't carry enough of it.

At a minimum, not only should Sea Trade Routes be at least 2x the length of land routes, there should be no Food from land trade routes, only small amounts of Production, Science if the origin city has major Science 'production' to trade, and Amenities. You want to move Food or Raw Strategic Materials, you will have to go by Sea until railroads and later mechanized land transport.

3. Hurricanes are devastating, but they should be very limited geographically. You don't get hurricanes hitting Seattle, for instance. You don't see a lot of hurricane activity affecting Glasgow, Lisbon or Vladivostok. The game should be much more 'selective' in Hurricane spawning and movement, so that, like floods and volcanoes, you have a pretty good idea where to expect them. I had a hurricane swirl in to a city on the coast on the edge of Tundra tiles, which is a little like having a hurricane hit Oslo or Anchorage!

 

[Takfloyd]

Coast has always been terrible in Civ VI, even with the buffs it has gotten over time (remember the launch of vanilla? it was a complete joke). It makes no sense, because cities historically were built on the coast whenever possible. In Civ VI, you only build on the coast when playing as a civ with buffs for it or when planning to focus on naval attacks and raiding. Otherwise you're just inviting those raiders to you.

It's realistic that sea tiles don't normally give production, even though that's the main thing that makes sea tiles bad. But to compensate, they should provide much stronger benefits for trade income, which is what coastal cities thrived off historically. Give 5 gold to all your trade routes passing through your harbors or something, or just an extra gold yield per coastal tile.

 

[Sic]

Double trade routes from coastal cities needs a comeback.

It just needs to hit a bit later than it used to.

 

[godman85]

No one in ancient times built on the coast unless their kingdom was prone to invasion. Building on the coast, made spotting raiders much easier and gave you a natural advantage of the highlands and not allowing the enemy to enter your country in multiple paths.

This was THE ONLY coastal advantage. Most cities were built on rivers and lakes. Why? Much better and cleaner water. More agriculture. More stable resources.

Until people started being able to sail DEEP into the ocean, it was pretty much obsolete and settled EXCLUSIVELY to be fortresses for defense.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Y'all are crazy. What's wrong with being forced to build a district so you can use 1/2 the tiles in the city? I food 1 gold is totally legit and too good, much like the 2 food from a Canadian tundra farm.

If you waste 2 more governor promotions you can even have tiles that are almost as good as a grassland farm or something. In like 80 turns from now or something, you'll get like 8 science per turn and that's totally OP k.

Though lake starts are probably the absolute worst for no reason. No sailing boost, and basically relies on a wonder to make it useful. Sorta.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

No one in ancient times built on the coast unless their kingdom was prone to invasion. Building on the coast, made spotting raiders much easier and gave you a natural advantage of the highlands and not allowing the enemy to enter your country in multiple paths.

This was THE ONLY coastal advantage. Most cities were built on rivers and lakes. Why? Much better and cleaner water. More agriculture. More stable resources.

Until people started being able to sail DEEP into the ocean, it was pretty much obsolete and settled EXCLUSIVELY to be fortresses for defense.

Very true, that in the most ancient times nobody built on the coast: nobody had the technology to exploit the sea until efficient sails were developed and applied. But that took place well before the Classical Era (Bronze Age sailing vessels were traversing the Mediterranean and Black Seas by 2000 BCE, possibly earlier) and after that, the sea was the preferred highway for trade, and that and rivers were the only way to feed a really big city: Babylon and Antioch on rivers, Rome, Alexandria, Athens, Syracuse, Carthage, Tyre, Byzantium - all on the coast or up a short river/portage like Rome and Athens. The Romans built 1500 ton capacity grain freighters to run grain from North Africa to Rome, the biggest ships seen anywhere until the medieval Chinese ocean-going 'Junks'.

So, the fact remains, for most of the game, the sea should be a lot more important than it is now.