Sea resources are incredibly under-tuned

[stealth_nsk]

That's no sense, you compete for all the tiles in the world togheter, they are not "free". And obviously I'm not saying that a sea city surrounded by nothing should be better than a land city with tons of resource. But a sea city with a lot of resources should be equal to a land city with a lot of resources, that's simple. It's not "free", you still try to catch that resources, so I don't get your problem with this.

They are free, because you can't settle ocean, so large pools of water have no cities on them.

 

[bumpyglint]

They are free, because you can't settle ocean, so large pools of water have no cities on them.

I repeat, I'm talking about the valuable ocean's tiles. I know that you will always got a possibility to settle a horsehockey city surrounded by the almost nothing (both in coastal or land), and I can agree that a coastal city surrounded by nothing should be bad (same for a land city surrounded by nothing), but I don't get why we are talking about this. If the sea's tiles got the same potencial of land's tiles we would not even talk about "free tiles" because everybody would settle land and sea in equal measure (or at least based on his necessity and not on the "sea=****" actual concept), so you would see the same "wasted" space in sea and land (not counting the unreachable tiles obviously). I'm saying that the actual "good coastal city" are not good as the "good land city" and this is simply no sense, they should at least be equal (I repeat, at least good coastal city should, not the coastal city surrounded by nothing).

 

[bumpyglint]

In the actual version everybody will always colonize land tiles first lefting sea tiles at the end, this is no sense, in the human history eveybody who could get a good coastal city did it and has been rewarded a lot.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I repeat, I'm talking about the valuable ocean's tiles. I know that you will always got a possibility to settle a horsehockey city surrounded by the almost nothing (both in coastal or land), and I can agree that a coastal city surrounded by nothing should be bad (same for a land city surrounded by nothing), but I don't get why we are talking about this. If the sea's tiles got the same potencial of land's tiles we would not even talk about "free tiles" because everybody would settle land and sea in equal measure (or at least based on his necessity and not on the "sea=****" actual concept), so you would see the same "wasted" space in sea and land (not counting the unreachable tiles obviously). I'm saying that the actual "good coastal city" are not good as the "good land city" and this is simply no sense, they should at least be equal (I repeat, at least good coastal city should, not the coastal city surrounded by nothing).

Ok, to illustrate, see 2 map setups for the coast:

Spoiler :

If sea tiles are equal to land ones or at least not much worse, the second setup is always better, because you just have more land (marked with "+"). It's no-brainer choice to settle on coast. If sea tiles are significantly worse than land ones, it's quite complex strategic choice as in first setup the third city could potentially get more land (from the first 2 cities), while in second setup your overall workable land is bigger.

That's what I'm talking about.

 

[EgonSpengler]

While this is true to an extent, the boundaries of real life cities are not circular. The need for ocean tiles to function is in part tied to the arbitrary shape of Civilization's cities, which are always round, with the "city center" in the middle, whereas in real life when a city gets bigger it just pushes out further from the coast. If there was a district we could build, called say the "downtown district" and that could be anywhere in the radius of the city and replace the city center, that would be a possible way to partially get around this, but that's theorycrafting new mechanics.

Yes, that's definitely true. Another aspect of Civ that makes realism more difficult is the need for every city to feed itself. I think this works fine in the early game and only becomes truly bizarre in late eras. Civ V tried to patch the hole with things that make Food more of an abstraction, like Hospitals and Civil Society (under the Freedom ideology).

 

[Babarigo]

And if you can't? Sea tiles need to be more useful than nothing, but less useful than land tiles, that's how it is. For how much - it's the question of balance fine-tuning.

If you have a city 5 tils away from the cost, you could build second city closer to the first one with tile overlap or on the coast with free coastal cities. It's really interesting choice, because if you don't consider growing those cities too much, overlap could be better, but if you want to get maximum out of them, grabbing free sea tiles will give you more.

I'm not saying that's currently balanced - I didn't play the game. But most of the other posters here didn't as well.


If free tiles have the same potential as those you compete for, they are always better. That's simple.

The only reason you would build a city on the coast is because you can build districts such as the harbour or the commercial district that will give trade routes. If the coastal city you build can't neither have districts nor luxuries then it's wasting a settler. Even then, getting at least one district per city is very common, even the AI manages it so yes you will almost always something better than the water. Anyway, just look some gameplay videos, nobody works those tiles because they are worthless.

Ok, to illustrate, see 2 map setups for the coast:

Spoiler :

If sea tiles are equal to land ones or at least not much worse, the second setup is always better, because you just have more land (marked with "+"). It's no-brainer choice to settle on coast. If sea tiles are significantly worse than land ones, it's quite complex strategic choice as in first setup the third city could potentially get more land (from the first 2 cities), while in second setup your overall workable land is bigger.

That's what I'm talking about.

The water tiles are not worth working in any case and even if you wanted you wouldn't get enough food to work the tiles you get from the second setup. Actually the first one is better because it is easier to have the district adjacency bonus with closer cities and for the regional effects. For me your exemple will be true if you could manage to have better yields from water since you'll have to chose between the production and the amenities from industrial and entertainment districts from building the city closer to your two other cities or having more decent tiles to work but losing the production and the amenities.

 

[EgonSpengler]

In the actual version everybody will always colonize land tiles first lefting sea tiles at the end, this is no sense, in the human history eveybody who could get a good coastal city did it and has been rewarded a lot.

It depends what you mean by "good" coastal city. For the first few thousand years, you're basically only talking about the Mediterranean, and even then, it wasn't the sea resources that made those nations powerful, it was trade. Once a few nations figured out how to sail the big oceans, those Mediterranean empires were relegated to Div-II very quickly. If human history has been a giant game of Civ, it was almost suicidal to settle a foundational city on the coast until maybe the late 17th Century.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

The end goal may be to pack as many cities as possible in a given location as each city can only have a limited number of districts because each district can only be built once per city and stuff like factories get more powerful the more cities it can reach.

If you settle near coast you will likely be able to get more cities.

 

[ExemplarVoss]

The end goal may be to pack as many cities as possible in a given location as each city can only have a limited number of districts because each district can only be built once per city and stuff like factories get more powerful the more cities it can reach.

If you settle near coast you will likely be able to get more cities.

But worse ones, with fewer luxuries and strategic resources, or other worthwhile benefits. They'd basically do nothing but increase district costs in good cities.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Districts cost is mainly dependent on turn time from what I have seen.

Later on entertainment district give regional effect which do stack with each other and so do industrial zones.

 

[Calcifer]

I agree sea resources should be at least as powerful as inland tiles, for example a fish tile with fihing boats should provide roughly the same yields as a grassland tile with a farm. I don't agree on plain sea tiles being as useful as inland tiles. A city should aim to grab as much land as possible, while sea access (either with a harbor or a coastal city center) should be useful only for transportation and sea resources. I don't see why a coastal city with 20 sea tiles and 16 land tiles should be as valuable as a city with 6 sea tiles and 30 land tiles, that is a nonsense.

Coast: Diameter of 50 (625 total "tiles")
1 hex inland: Diameter of 42 (441 total "tiles")
2 hex inland: Diameter of 38 (361 total "tiles")
I say "tiles" for area because I'm sure A = π × r2 is not exact with hexagons.

It looks like your numbers are referred to a square grid. In a hex grid, a trade route with a range of r tiles gives access to a number of tiles that is n=3*r*(r+1).
So if the range is 25 tiles, you can access 1950 different tiles.

 

[bumpyglint]

For the example with the painting, after you have a strong land power it should always be a brainless idea to take sea surrounded by resources, because it's obvious you should need it in the 99 % of the case!! The strategic point should be where to place it, how to act with it, etc... Austria with Italy, Poland with gdansk, history is full of example where country tried to reach the sea to expand.

It depends what you mean by "good" coastal city. For the first few thousand years, you're basically only talking about the Mediterranean, and even then, it wasn't the sea resources that made those nations powerful, it was trade. Once a few nations figured out how to sail the big oceans, those Mediterranean empires were relegated to Div-II very quickly. If human history has been a giant game of Civ, it was almost suicidal to settle a foundational city on the coast until maybe the late 17th Century.

1) Yeah, Mediterranean was GREAT, expecially for trade. In civ VI a sea like Mediterranean would be simply ignored, and this is not ok for me. Rome, Carthago, Athens ecc... will not exist in this game or will be more weak.
2) Mediterranean didn't become "useless", simply the Atlantic became really more important after the America's discovery, and now (in our days) the Pacific is the new ruling sea. If you study history you discover that there aren't ages where the seas are useless, there are just ages where some seas lose importance and anothers gain it.

I agree sea resources should be at least as powerful as inland tiles, for example a fish tile with fihing boats should provide roughly the same yields as a grassland tile with a farm. I don't agree on plain sea tiles being as useful as inland tiles. A city should aim to grab as much land as possible, while sea access (either with a harbor or a coastal city center) should be useful only for transportation and sea resources. I don't see why a coastal city with 20 sea tiles and 16 land tiles should be as valuable as a city with 6 sea tiles and 30 land tiles, that is a nonsense.



It looks like your numbers are referred to a square grid. In a hex grid, a trade route with a range of r tiles gives access to a number of tiles that is n=3*r*(r+1).
So if the range is 25 tiles, you can access 1950 different tiles.

I 100 % agree that plain sea tiles should not be usefull like the normal inland tiles, I already told it, the point is that overall a costal city should be good like an inland one, expecially in the old era. It could be done with more powerfull sea resources (like Civ V), with sea trade routes actually more powerfull and usefull, with special building etc...

 

[Calcifer]

I 100 % agree that plain sea tiles should [not] be usefull like the normal inland tiles, I already told it, the point is that overall a costal city should be good like an inland one, expecially in the old era. It could be done with more powerfull sea resources (like Civ V), with sea trade routes actually more powerfull and usefull, with special building etc...

As you said, access to sea tiles is useful for sea resources, sea trade routes and sea-related buildings. This does not mean that ocean tile yields have to be the same as land tile yields. Ocean tile yields being worse is perfectly reasonable for me.

EDIT: turns out we agree

 

[bumpyglint]

As you said, access to sea tiles is useful for sea resources, sea trade routes and sea-related buildings. This does not mean that ocean tile yields have to be the same as land tile yields. Ocean tile yields being worse is perfectly reasonable for me.

Wait, BAD MISTAKE, I didn't write "not". I edited, I agree with this!

P.s. as you could probably easily see english is not my first language.

 

[randomwalker]

pitching in here:

Real life: Transporting bulk goods over sea is cheaper than over land, and for most of human history it has also been faster and simpler. (One ship from port to port without crossing 3rd party territory).

Game: while not taking a firm stance on whether sea resources should be boosted or not, it seems obvious to me that port cities should generate far more trade and more distant trade routes than land-locked cities. In my opinion, a city centre actually on the coast would indicate a more maritime culture and hence even more trade than just a harbour district (ie Venice, Hansa cities).

Real life: Viking raiders, the British empire and many others were able to project power far from their homes and move quicker than land-based opponents could react. Explorers, envoys, missionaries and news travelled faster by sea than over land, not to mention supply lines.

Game: In every civ game, ships have moved slower than land units on a road, which makes very little sense. I understand that turn-based warfare would be very different if you gave galleons 20 movement points, but significantly increasing embarked speed and naval unit speed would make the sea game a lot more important and interesting.

 

[vit_sin]

It is not only that Ocean resources are low estimated, IMO, those resources need to be spread around ENTIRE ocean, especially should be tons of fish/crab/etc + oil/natural gas around single-tile-islands in the middle of the ocean. In CiIV, as well as CiV, as I recall, ocean was always underestimated in its power to feed/provide to humans and thus I do strongly believe Firaxis could do much, much better work for ocean in the game.

 

[EgonSpengler]

pitching in here:

Real life: Transporting bulk goods over sea is cheaper than over land, and for most of human history it has also been faster and simpler. (One ship from port to port without crossing 3rd party territory).

Game: while not taking a firm stance on whether sea resources should be boosted or not, it seems obvious to me that port cities should generate far more trade and more distant trade routes than land-locked cities. In my opinion, a city centre actually on the coast would indicate a more maritime culture and hence even more trade than just a harbour district (ie Venice, Hansa cities).

Real life: Viking raiders, the British empire and many others were able to project power far from their homes and move quicker than land-based opponents could react. Explorers, envoys, missionaries and news travelled faster by sea than over land, not to mention supply lines.

Game: In every civ game, ships have moved slower than land units on a road, which makes very little sense. I understand that turn-based warfare would be very different if you gave galleons 20 movement points, but significantly increasing embarked speed and naval unit speed would make the sea game a lot more important and interesting.

I agree completely. And it isn't just the seas: Civ has always undervalued the economic impact of rivers and canals, and of the technologies that make use of them, such as the European cog. The Danube/Donetsk/Don/Dnieper river flows through what looks like 50 or 60 cities, including 4 national capitals (the list is in Wikipedia, I didn't bother to actually count them). Even in 2016, the Mississippi River is one of the US' major trade routes. I can't remember the exact numbers, but I think a Mississippi river barge carries cargo equal to 20 (or is it 50?) Mack trucks.

Have canals ever been in a Civ game? I can't recall any, but it's been years since I've played anything other than V. I'm not talking about the big canals, Panama and Suez, either. I've heard that before the 20th Century, you could get from New York City to Chicago by canals that aren't used much anymore. I read somewhere that the Chinese canals were one of the things Marco Polo was most impressed with; he wrote that their city canals were so clogged with boats & barges you could walk across without a bridge.

 

[Babarigo]

It is not only that Ocean resources are low estimated, IMO, those resources need to be spread around ENTIRE ocean, especially should be tons of fish/crab/etc + oil/natural gas around single-tile-islands in the middle of the ocean. In CiIV, as well as CiV, as I recall, ocean was always underestimated in its power to feed/provide to humans and thus I do strongly believe Firaxis could do much, much better work for ocean in the game.

In my opinion, it was okay in Civ 4 and CiV. You just needed a lighthouse to get 2 food per tile. In Civ 4 you had the corporations, specifically Sid's Sushi Co which gave 0.5 food and 2 culture per each crab/fish/clam/rice resource. In archipelago maps you could have impressive amounts of food quite easily. But I agree with, it would be nice that that water got some attention from Firaxis. They did it for Civ BE so they could also make it for Civ 6 although in a different way.