Should Coast Tiles Yield an Extra Production for Balance?

[MarigoldRan]

Going to try it now.

Pretty easy change Just add in an extra line into Assets/Gameplay/Data Terrain xml.

The reason I did it is that an unmodded coast tile is even worse than a desert tile. Even as Indonesia coast tiles are still pretty bad since you can't chop them or build districts on them. They just happen to be "less bad" than anyone else. It can't be improved and you can't build districts on them. They're "total wastes."

Your thoughts?

 

[Pietato]

Yes. Auckland is the only way to make coastal cities not suck.

 

[MrRadar]

Why? Because since times immemorial people used to build different sorts of workshops on floating rafts or on the seabed all along the coast? Or no matter were you go to the seaside you're certain to find factories on the water happily humming to the tune of the surf?
I wouldn't say it's for 'balance', it's much more in the 'for kicks and lulz' category.

 

[MarigoldRan]

People in the past generally considered cities on the coast to be a good thing due to its proximity to food. In Civ 6 if you get a coastal start and you're not one of the few who can build improvements on the coast you think: "oh crap."

Another idea: make fishing ships spammable without the fish icon. The fish icon just means "unusually large number of fish."

If you wish to speak of realism, there's a lot more fish on the ocean than cows on the plains.

 

[Martinus]

People in the past generally considered cities on the coast to be a good thing due to its proximity to food. I

That's probably why all major European capitals - such as Rome, Paris, Madrid, Moscow or London - were built on the coast.

 

[Pietato]

Why? Because since times immemorial people used to build different sorts of workshops on floating rafts or on the seabed all along the coast? Or no matter were you go to the seaside you're certain to find factories on the water happily humming to the tune of the surf?
I wouldn't say it's for 'balance', it's much more in the 'for kicks and lulz' category.

Wtf do you think ancient production was?

 

[MarigoldRan]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080319114619.htm

 

[Victoria]

They're "total wastes."

Incorrect

Yes. Auckland is the only way to make coastal cities not suck

Incorrect

Place a lighthouse in the city and it’s 2 food 1 gold per sea tile.
Place a seaport for +2 gold to all sea tiles
Place a kampung for +1 prod and +1 food per adjacent resource
Fishery same as Kampung but not production.
Fishing boat +1 food
Cartography = +1 gold from fishing boats
Plastics = +1 food from fishing boats
The secret is building a lighthouse, the moment you do that your sea is all +2 food +1 gold... fish are +4 food +1 gold and your crabs are +3/+3. Throw in a fishery or 2 with double adjacency at +4 food each and your city skyrockets, it does not even really need more housing. Settle a coastal city with lots of mountains and 2-3 resources and you will end up with a powerhouse. Make sure you have a harbour triangle and is just awesome.
You up the power of coastal tiles and it becomes disgustingly good.

Note I did not mention god of the sea or Auckland.Neither is required if you have plains hills shoreside.
Place Reyna in a big coastal city with a couple of promotions and it will be making at least 100 GPT after a seaport which is rather a nice bonus.

If you are playing a long game you really should do this with a city.

That's probably why all major European capitals - such as Rome, Paris, Madrid, Moscow or London - were built on the coast.

Capitals were chosen not for food but for central location, trade, fresh water and political reasons.

 

[Karpius]

If you wish to speak of realism, there's a lot more fish on the ocean than cows on the plains.

I think the coastal tiles are just fine as they are. In reality, being on the coast is not an automatic guarantee that you have access to a great bounty of food. Don't forget, the cradle of civilization began far from the ocean in what is considered the "Fertile Crescent" as people began to learn cultivation of grains. Living on the beach might provide a bare subsistence, but not much more until technology allowed greater access. Even then, if one looks at food production over the ages, the sea was never primary.

The fact is, most coastal areas don't really offer good access to what the sea has to offer on any sort of scale that can serve a major population. Most beaches don't offer good boat access. The fish don't swim up to the beach and jump in your hands. Shellfish and other seafood are not plentiful on every beach. Some areas have very long stretches of unworkable surf. Even in the 21st Century, cultivation of marine products is far behind traditional land products due to a number of challenges.

In game, I think the coastal tiles are right where they should be.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

I love building coastal cities. The ability to build boats without harbor is very powerful.

If coastal tile adds production they will be imbalanced, especially for the tiles with resource.

 

[Uberfrog]

That's probably why all major European capitals - such as Rome, Paris, Madrid, Moscow or London - were built on the coast.

Capitals were chosen not for food but for central location, trade, fresh water and political reasons.

It's also an amusingly selective list: where's Athens, Constantinople, Venice, Lisbon, Amsterdam...?

 

[Phoenix1595]

I admit that I love the production bump when I get Auckland suzereignty, but I agree with the above re: realism. I don't think production when I think of the coast. As @Victoria mentioned, the real value of coastal tiles comes from development of you gold, which I think is more historically accurate-- port cities are known for trade. Harbor buildings more than compensate for the lack of initial benefit from coastal tiles. Production should come from a city's interior plots inland.

 

[Victoria]

Athens, Constantinople, Lisbon, Venice, Amsterdam.

Well considering Athens it just needs to be coastal. It makes perfect sense.
Constantinople is such an awesome city... I bet they have thought about shifting it centrally but I can understand why they do not, its history alone.
Venice?... oh cmon!
Amsterdam, well they did have a fine naval past
Lisbon... its a coastal country (trade)

you are just being froggish

 

[Leyrann]

What do coast tiles have to do with production? They grant food - fish - and gold - trade. Production doesn't make any thematic sense and also removes the tradeoffs for setting on coast (more gold, bigger city, but less production). Auckland being the exception to that is fine, but it shouldn't be the standard.

 

[historix69]

Coastal and Riverside Cities usually have easier access to trade routes and waterway transportation of goods, so it was easier to transport building materials like stone blocks for the Pyramids or to ship lots of Food from Egypt to Rome to feed a million civilians there. This was represented in Civ6 by an additional trade route for coastal cities with harbor, but was later removed by the devs probably since trade routes turned out to be too strong.

 

[Uberfrog]

Coastal and Riverside Cities usually have easier access to trade routes and waterway transportation of goods, so it was easier to transport building materials like stone blocks for the Pyramids or to ship lots of Food from Egypt to Rome to feed a million civilians there. This was represented in Civ6 by an additional trade route for coastal cities with harbor, but was later removed by the devs probably since trade routes turned out to be too strong.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I wish Civ V and VI actually bothered to model rivers in an interesting way (i.e. as navigable, and allowing much longer trade routes). Not all major cities need a coast, but they certainly all enjoy rivers, and not just for food and housing reasons...

 

[MrRadar]

People in the past generally considered cities on the coast to be a good thing due to its proximity to food. <...>
If you wish to speak of realism, there's a lot more fish on the ocean than cows on the plains.

Cows are a bit more accessible from the get go than all that fish in the ocean

And as for the coastal cities in the past and food considerations, fishermen had to have safe harbours to operate from, from convenient river estuaries, or safe and protected bays, not from any spot on the shore, otherwise the harbour and ships would be smashed to pieces by the first serious storm. And in the beginning this fishing wasn't on such industrial scale as now. So moderate food and gold in the beginning is quite accurate reflection of that, and further improvements also reasonably represent an increase of food and trade incoming from the sea.

In Civ 6 if you get a coastal start and you're not one of the few who can build improvements on the coast you think: "oh crap."

No, you try to 'play the map' and make good of the strengths of your civ. Go inland or, if there's no escape from the sea, maybe start worshipping it ("God of the Sea" +1 prod. to sea resources). Try to find Auckland, adapt. Because in the same spirit you can continue with desert, mountains, snow tiles and mod some nice things into them too, all in the good cause of that 'balance' thingy.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Another idea: make fishing ships spammable without the fish icon.

I think that's going in the wrong direction. I don't want to re-hash a recent conversation from another thread, but I think being able to spam mines on every hill is a mistake. Others disagree and think it's important to be able to improve every tile with early techs, and they would likely agree with your suggestion about fishing boats for the same reason. Me, I think even being able to put farms on every flatland is a mistake. At some point in past iterations of Civ you could only farm land adjacent to fresh water, and then farm adjacent to other farms as you extended your irrigation network.

There's an odd inconsistency with resource improvements in Civ 6. Fishing boats, quarries, plantations, lumber mills, oil wells can only be placed on a relevant resource. Farms and mines, though, can be placed on any flatland/hill tile even without a relevant resource.

I think the coastal economies work better than the land for the reasons pointed out by Victoria above: the relevant district and buildings boost the productivity of the coastal tiles, giving you a return on those investments and encouraging you to keep resources intact. I'd prefer to see land economics move towards the coastal system, rather than the other way around.

 

[historix69]

If you want to harvest fish, you build a fishing village.
If you want to trade, you build a city alongside one of the major trade routes of your time or even better at a crossing of several major trade routes, usually near a river or a coast for reasons of transportation of bulk goods.
In Civ 6 this does not work since Civ 6 does not simulate real trade but instead uses trade routes as a city bonus system, creating food and production at will.
(In Civ1 you could build caravans and transport real production from one city to another to aid building a world wonder. Or you could establish trade routes with foreign cities, increasing trade income per turn based on the trade both cities produced.)

 

[acluewithout]

@Trav'ling Canuck You make some good points. But how tiles work, particularly how they are improved, are so backed into the game and it's balance I've no idea how this could sensibly be unpicked.

On coastal cities, they look a lot better if you look at them as a long term investment. I normally have some powerhouse inland city getting my civ going; but later on it's the coastal cities which produce the real value.