Nerfing the coast is just annoying

[criZp]

just don't settle the coast bro xD works for me xD

 

[acluewithout]

[C]ities on the coast should be better than inland cities as per RL which then gives the current punishing coastal design some balance. However, the opposite is currently in effect, poor start and crippled later.

Exactly. Well said.

 

[Jkchart]

The Commercial Hub Adjacency is a relic of the old double trade routes. How many people build both a Harbour and a Commercial Hub in coastal cities these days?

I think there are a fair amount of people that will. I do (usually not until the later game, or unless I can spare the production or have nothing else to build there), and I know I'm not the only one. But it does need to me made more optimal/powerful. I also want double trade routes to come back. Also, there needs to be some sort of cargo port building or something that can massively increase production/gold.

There does need to be some buff to coastal cities. Yes, I build them for the gold, yes they are "better" but they aren't in an optimal place yet. They do not reflect accurately their historical importance as commercial/production centers or population centers.

After all - Why build on the coast when I can build a tile inland near better mining spots and just build a harbor later?

 

[Jkchart]

Make harbors unlock at sailing and give 2 housing would be a start. Fishing boats should give 1 housing, up from 0.5. Also make purchase cost of coastal tiles half price both with gold and culture.

Then maybe coastal starts might be competitive.

I've been agreeing with harbors unlocking at sailing since @Victoria started saying it

The leaf node is ridiculous

 

[Abaxial]

I remember in 2011 there was some talk that the Japanese should not have towns along the east coast of Honshu, because there was too much chance of them being wiped out by tsunamis. Thing is, if you are a fishing community, what else are you going to do? Build on the hills and travel down to the coast every day to retrieve your boats? Then again, you have some problems with tsunami defences. The run-up height in March 2011, IIRC, was 14 m. So one town has built itself a protective barrier in the form of a wall along the seafront 14 m tall. Talk about spoiling the view ...

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

*** key post ***
I have dug into the files rather than being anecdotal in what I am trying to say and was surprised to see it worse than I thought.
Even turning to slider 0 you still get events occurring so you cannot turn off random events.
Looking at the 4 storm categories (hurricane, sand, tornado and snow) they all have the same damage chances with the exception of hurricanes which regardless of severity guarantee 100% to pillage all improvement and districts that are built on coastal lowlands. So even if you build flood barriers the lowlands on the coast get hit bad every time.

If we exclude the coastal lowlands the chance of occurrence and damage is the same so all should be equal, right? Nope, a tornado family damages one tile and a tornado outbreak damages 3 tiles. A dust storm damages 3 tiles and a haboob 7 tiles. Blizzards and hurricanes however damage 7 tiles if mild and 19 tiles if severe. The only military unit that can get damaged more than 60% is naval which can get 80% damaged in a cat 5 hurricane. Blizzards are as bad ... so GS has nerfed tundra and coastal cities much more than other cities but coastal cities worse because of coastal lowlands.... and in this patch they will increase the amount of coastal lowlands.

This now explains why my coastal cities get really badly hammered and my inland ones do not, ignoring the fact that coastal cities can still be hit by sandstorms, tornadoes and blizzards. GS has really nerfed naval civs.... and is yet another reason why Canada is rubbish.

Rather than just complaining... especially as the storm sizes and damage seem RL, the real issue is as has already been specified so well in this thread. That cities on the coast should be better than inland cities as per RL which then gives the current punishing coastal design some balance. However, the opposite is currently in effect, poor start and crippled later.

As usual, Victoria has provided some hard game facts to support the specifics of our discussion. Well done!

While the extra extent and destructiveness of Hurricanes is justifiable in RL, the limitations of hurricanes have not been modeled in the game: they are almost exclusively a tropical phenomena. Hurricanes are spawned and fed by the heat of tropical waters, and if there are no or not enough tropical waters, you are effectively Immune from hurricanes: note that historically, Oslo, London, Tyre and Alexandria have not spent much time worrying about hurricanes.

- Unlike in the game.

To do this right will, of course, require some changes in coding: Hurricanes start only in open (deep sea) water in the middle 1/4 of the map. IF they move north or south, they immediately begin to get smaller and less dangerous: if they move to the top or bottom (north or south) 25 - 30% of the map OR move over land, they immediately become 'Storms' that can cause some flooding (torrential rains) but, having lost the 'hurricane-force' winds, will not obliterate Buildings or Districts.

Parenthetically, the sort of major destruction visited by In-Game Hurricanes to coastal cities rarely happened historically. The greatest destruction of cities has always occurred as a result of seismic/volcanic activity, as in the destruction of Port Royal, the Tsunami that leveled much of Lisbon, the earthquakes that obliterated much of San Francisco in 1906, and Tokyo several times (the latest in 1922, which caused more destruction than the WWII 'fire raids'). Having left earthquakes out of GS, maybe they felt that they needed to use Hurricanes to take their place, but all they did was make such destruction unique to coastal cities. I'm sure that would be a great relief to the survivors of the Great London Fire of the Renaissance or the Chicago Fire of the Industrial Era, but it doesn't do the game any good.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

As usual, Victoria has provided some hard game facts to support the specifics of our discussion. Well done!

While the extra extent and destructiveness of Hurricanes is justifiable in RL, the limitations of hurricanes have not been modeled in the game: they are almost exclusively a tropical phenomena. Hurricanes are spawned and fed by the heat of tropical waters, and if there are no or not enough tropical waters, you are effectively Immune from hurricanes: note that historically, Oslo, London, Tyre and Alexandria have not spent much time worrying about hurricanes.

- Unlike in the game.

To do this right will, of course, require some changes in coding: Hurricanes start only in open (deep sea) water in the middle 1/4 of the map. IF they move north or south, they immediately begin to get smaller and less dangerous: if they move to the top or bottom (north or south) 25 - 30% of the map OR move over land, they immediately become 'Storms' that can cause some flooding (torrential rains) but, having lost the 'hurricane-force' winds, will not obliterate Buildings or Districts.

Parenthetically, the sort of major destruction visited by In-Game Hurricanes to coastal cities rarely happened historically. The greatest destruction of cities has always occurred as a result of seismic/volcanic activity, as in the destruction of Port Royal, the Tsunami that leveled much of Lisbon, the earthquakes that obliterated much of San Francisco in 1906, and Tokyo several times (the latest in 1922, which caused more destruction than the WWII 'fire raids'). Having left earthquakes out of GS, maybe they felt that they needed to use Hurricanes to take their place, but all they did was make such destruction unique to coastal cities. I'm sure that would be a great relief to the survivors of the Great London Fire of the Renaissance or the Chicago Fire of the Industrial Era, but it doesn't do the game any good.

Galveston thinks hurricanes can be pretty bad though.

 

[Kwami]

As usual, Victoria has provided some hard game facts to support the specifics of our discussion. Well done!

While the extra extent and destructiveness of Hurricanes is justifiable in RL, the limitations of hurricanes have not been modeled in the game: they are almost exclusively a tropical phenomena. Hurricanes are spawned and fed by the heat of tropical waters, and if there are no or not enough tropical waters, you are effectively Immune from hurricanes: note that historically, Oslo, London, Tyre and Alexandria have not spent much time worrying about hurricanes.

- Unlike in the game.

Well, when I was last in London, we certainly experienced the equivalent of a hurricane. It hit Germany, the Netherlands, and others, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone_Kyrill

And here's a more recent example of London worrying about a hurricane: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/...n-bringing-winds-of-up-to-80mph-a3953126.html

As the ocean temperature rises, more cities will be exposed to cyclones and other tropical storms.

Anyway, inland cities more often suffer dust storms, tornadoes, droughts, volcanoes, and floods. Sure, these disasters can affect coastal cities. But, at least in my experience, they happen far more to inland cities.

 

[MisterBoomBoom]

https://www.wunderground.com/education/webster.asp
A little bit more complete, fair and educated than Wiki or personal observations.

 

[Tech Osen]

I also want double trade routes to come back.

I'd rather see trade routes from cities with both a harbor and hub have double the yield than an extra trade route. Gets annoying having too many routes to renew.

 

[chazzycat]

literally not one person in this entire thread has mentioned free inquiry?

this is an April fools joke right?

coast is the best!

 

[Kwami]

https://www.wunderground.com/education/webster.asp
A little bit more complete, fair and educated than Wiki or personal observations.

Unfortunately, it's also 14 years old. I wonder if there's anything more recent...

 

[MisterBoomBoom]

Unfortunately, it's also 14 years old. I wonder if there's anything more recent...

Sure! Apocalyptic scenarios attributed to global warming are simply false and the human race will be able to accommodate whatever “climate change” throws at us, claims a remarkably sober March 2018 essay in Scientific American. If one looks past one's safe zone (and media hysteria) much can be revealed. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/should-we-chill-out-about-global-warming/

 

[Jkchart]

I'd rather see trade routes from cities with both a harbor and hub have double the yield than an extra trade route. Gets annoying having too many routes to renew.

Fair enough. Actually a good solution!

That was still the best part of RNDY until they nerfed it :-( I'd be okay for that to come back

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Well, when I was last in London, we certainly experienced the equivalent of a hurricane. It hit Germany, the Netherlands, and others, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone_Kyrill

And here's a more recent example of London worrying about a hurricane: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/...n-bringing-winds-of-up-to-80mph-a3953126.html

As the ocean temperature rises, more cities will be exposed to cyclones and other tropical storms.

Anyway, inland cities more often suffer dust storms, tornadoes, droughts, volcanoes, and floods. Sure, these disasters can affect coastal cities. But, at least in my experience, they happen far more to inland cities.

Northwestern Europe gets a great effect from the Gulf Stream pouring relatively warm water into it - Berlin is as far north as Hudson's Bay, Canada, to give you an idea what the climate would be like in England, France and Germany without that 'stream'. Unfortunately, the Gulf Stream also acts as a highway/funnel for hurricanes from the tropical Atlantic: if they stay over water, they can move in a Great Circle from off the coast of Africa west towards the Caribbean, up the North American coast and then up past Newfoundland and the Grand Banks to slam with varying degrees of storm left into Ireland and the British Isles. That's why New York City can get hit with a hurricane as it was a few years ago, and in central Pennsylvania I can remember getting hit with torrential rains from a dissipating hurricane several decades ago - and I lived a good 150 - 200 miles from the coast!

There are several Major Climactic Events that have had an effect on Human history that would be worth including in Civ map generation: the Gulf Stream, the Monsoon winds in the Indian Ocean, the Cyclone tracks in the Pacific that occasionally hit all the way up to Japan, the Humboldt Current off South America that provides some of the richest fishing ground in the world - maybe something like a set of Natural Climactic Wonders in addition to the stationary Natural Wonders we have now.

 

[Depravo]

There are several Major Climactic Events that have had an effect on Human history that would be worth including in Civ map generation: the Gulf Stream, the Monsoon winds in the Indian Ocean, the Cyclone tracks in the Pacific that occasionally hit all the way up to Japan, the Humboldt Current off South America that provides some of the richest fishing ground in the world - maybe something like a set of Natural Climactic Wonders in addition to the stationary Natural Wonders we have now.

I also wish they'd include currents / winds, both for map generation purposes and exploration. It wouldn't even be that hard to implement for a random map, since the physical forces involved are (on this scale) simple, and valid on any planet. And natural disasters introduced in GS could be slotted in.