One off coast that bad?

working coastal tiles from a non-coastal city is bad since they will always be a 1F2C tile. Other than that, there is no problem.
 
Also things to consider when settling 1 of the coast:
1) Less trade routes. Coastal cities tend to have the best ones.
2) No harbor so less health
3) No harbor so less trade route income
4) No custom house so less trade route income
5) No extra trade routes from the great lighthouse if build.
But if the city is so much better 1 tile of the coast and they weigh up against the disadvantages mentioned, then do so.
 
And let me be the first to say 'Welcome to the boards Wyvernjack!' :beer:
 
Oh and btw, Since the trade routes get so juicy near the later stages of the game and health becomes an issue in later stages, the placement one tile from the coast does not typically become an issue until the late stages. If you need the city for short term gain then one tile of the coast is fine, but a good tile alone - say gold of corn - will not compensate for the long term loss. Short term the gold or corn is better than coastal + missing that tile, long term it is worse imo.
 
The short term is more important so only settle on coast if there's no significant short term loss for doing so or of course if there's an advantage as is often the case.
 
It's pretty much like having mountains in your BFC. I build cities with mountains in the BFC, so I'd settle one off the coast too.

I'd have to have a very good reason to do so, however. The Harbor alone can make a city substantially more valuable than it otherwise would be.
 
You do have the occasionaly overlap where one city's lighthouse will improve another non-coastal city's coastal tiles. That still doesn't help with trade routes, though.
 
Back
Top Bottom