Seaside start a disadvantage?

[David1107]

Is starting at seaside a disadvantage?
If I do and I put beakers into sea tech, then I'll have fewer applicable tech for land right?
Under what situation can starting at seaside or even having any seaside cities a advantage?

 

[bite]

If there are no sea resources then it can be a disadvantage, however the ability to quick explore around the coastlines can be handy at times

 

[sufficiency]

IMO, it's not that bad if it's NOT Pearl.

Whales and Crabs both give +1food+1gold when improved (i.e. 3food when improved without lighthouse), and you can chain them because Fishing Boots are 240g (same as a lux). It's very easy to get a whole bunch of 3food 3gold tiles really quickly this way... and they get upgraded very quickly because Lighthorse, Harbers, and Seaports are not as deep in tech, although admittedly you do have to go a little off track to get them on a land map.

 

[Civsassin]

They can be a very big advantage under the right circumstances. With sea resources, harbors give you one hammer for each, and seaports give you another. There is also a pantheon that gives you one hammer per fishing boat. Early on, my priority is production, so harbors and the pantheon are very important if you have the resources.

 

[Gucumatz]

It can be terrible. Particularly in multiplayer because it is much harder to defend a city from the sea against a Human than to defend by land

 

[Lord Dante]

Like most people have said it really depends on the situation. Starting on a coastline with one fish and very little usable land within your boarders is pretty bad. However if you get 3 or more sea resources, even if they are just fish (as that is quickly +15 food when all upgraded), it can be quite a good spot. Combine that with [The Great] Lighthouses, Possibly the Collossus, and other sea-yielding-adding buildings and you could have a pretty powerful city on your hands.

Personally, If I get enough resources, I really love a coastal start. Having a Capital on the shore encourages navies (especially on continent and other water heavy maps), meaning I can build a fleet and attack both across the ocean and on my home continent. Plus it allows me to settle islands faster and meet city-states first.

 

[Rpger29]

Yeah this is one of those few questions with a clear cut answer. We could debate the exact thresholds, but it obviously depends on sea resources. I consider anything less than 4 eventual sea resources to be a busted sea start. That does include future (lucky) oil.

 

[Seabastian Civ]

Definitely in MP. Usually in SP. Workers are reusuable, workboats are one-shot. One worker can improve 10 luxuries while 1 workboat can improve 1 luxury. Also, important techs also allow you to improve resources. If you're seaside, you MUST research sailing before you improve your luxes, and then you must have a navy to protect them (at least from barb ships). Once razed, you must re-build a boat. Thumbs down to seaside starts. Give me a nice river start anyday.

 

[Seabastian Civ]

The only clear advantage to a seaside start is going for a naval rush, which can be deadly if your foe doesn't expect it. Capitals usually have high production = more boats quickly.

 

[Matthew.]

Just coastal is fine. You can generally get buy with less workers, which means more gold/hammer for other things (which end up being fishing boats or lighthouses). It is also nice to have a strong city (capital) for coastal wonders or ship building. Worse is when a city is on the coast, but it is too weak to take advantage of any of the coastal benefits.

However, coastal and jungle is a bit much. Production typically sucks, you are forced into sea tech and bronze tech, and tile improvements take forever when needing to get out lighthouses, fishing boats, and chopping down jungle.

 

[ense7en]

Yep.

If not three+ resources in the water within city's three-tile range, it's not all that great.

I often move away from the coast to settle unless i see a bunch of crab/whales/pearls.

It's a much slower start, and really tough in MP for that reason as well as the defensibility, as has been mentioned.

Obviously 3+ resources w/ a Lighthouse, Harbor, and Seaport is rather nice, but it takes a long time to get there, and many hammers are spent to do so, WAY more than the normal hammers spent on workers.

 

[sun surfer]

I love starting on the sea. In fact, unless I purposely choose an all land map, I'm always hoping to start by the sea. Maybe it is less strategically better, I don't know, but I just like it better. I feel like it makes the game funner.

It's also cool if I just start somewhere near the sea too. But if I end up in the middle of a continent and I know there's ocean somewhere, it's always like ugh, I have to make a choice of living without a seaside civ, expanding my civ in only one direction towards the ocean to get it there faster, or just sending settlers off to found a city by the sea even though they won't be near my starting civ.

 

[Mesix]

I prefer to start inland for my capital and concentrate on key technologies leaving the water improvement techs for a little later. I find that my 2nd or 3rd city being founded on a resource rich coastal location is very nice because I can pick up the sea techs fast at this point and improve the resources quickly, often buying work boats. When I start on the coast, I either have to build multiple work boats slowly (at a high opportunity cost in the early game since I am not building other things) or I have to divert hard earned early to buying work boats instead of settlers or buildings.

 

[smallfish]

What if inland cap was like this?

Spoiler :

But then you discover that there's an even better seaside choice (with God of the Sea)

Spoiler :

 

[Smokeybear]

I prefer to start inland for my capital and concentrate on key technologies leaving the water improvement techs for a little later. I find that my 2nd or 3rd city being founded on a resource rich coastal location is very nice because I can pick up the sea techs fast at this point and improve the resources quickly, often buying work boats. When I start on the coast, I either have to build multiple work boats slowly (at a high opportunity cost in the early game since I am not building other things) or I have to divert hard earned early to buying work boats instead of settlers or buildings.

Agree with this on all points. If you are on a mostly sea map, then of course a coastal capital city is to be expected, and just part of the skit. But if you are playing a map with mostly landmass and going naval early isn't expected to be a huge part of the experience, then a coast start for your capital can slow you down. The quickest route to early dominance in all victory conditions does not go through the upper sea-based techs- indeed, it ignores them entirely until later on when you pick them up almost as an afterthought, when they only cost 1 or 2 turns to get. Having a coastal start where you are forced to research the sea techs (because your luxes are all whales/pearls/crabs/fish/etc) when they still cost the full amount of time and beakers to attain, can really slow down your pursuit of the other techs, allowing other civs to beat you to that good stuff. At least on higher difficulties, where time is everything. On prince, I don't care so much.

I do like having a coastal city in most games, but like Mesix, I prefer to snag one later into the game when you can get the required techs quickly for a song. Another issue with sea resources being your capital's primary bonus tiles, is that while they do eventually become good all-around producers with a harbor and seaport, those techs don't happen until much farther into the game- so early on, you aren't getting any production from your sea resources, unlike many of the land ones that give large production bonuses. So unless you are lucky to have plenty of good production hills in the half of your city that is on land, you can be really strapped for hammers early on.

 

[joncnunn]

Is starting at seaside a disadvantage?
If I do and I put beakers into sea tech, then I'll have fewer applicable tech for land right?
Under what situation can starting at seaside or even having any seaside cities a advantage?

Nope; if anything its a minor advantage:

1) Naval exploration

2) Even on Pangaea, that's one direction you DON'T need to defend against.

 

[tetley]

Sea start is not the worst nor the best. A start town with 5 fish/whales and God of the Sea can kick butt. But going up against the Huns with 5 sheep+cows, the Huns will wipe them up.

 

[Anfillius]

But then you discover that there's an even better seaside choice

Yeah, that second site is a lot better.

Personally, I always settle my capital in the first turn, because I assume that to delay would cost me in the long run. This is a very good example of why I maybe should take a chance on exploring. Thoughts?

 

[ZackRaven2000]

I'd kind of find it an advantage, spawning on continents sometimes discourages me from sailing.

 

[JanghanHong]

Yeah, that second site is a lot better.

Personally, I always settle my capital in the first turn, because I assume that to delay would cost me in the long run. This is a very good example of why I maybe should take a chance on exploring. Thoughts?

Taking a turn or two to end up on a riverside hill next to a mountain is not a delay at all. the extra hammer and/or gold from a hill/river start will make up for lost production and gold in half a dozen turn, and eventually lost culture and research in a dozen turn.