Very few sea resources (and reasons to settle on the coast)

[KrikkitTwo]

From my understanding on housing

On a river = 5
Coast = 3
In land = 1

each farm and pasture give you .5 (unclear if they need to be worked or not)
Granary gives you 2

And we haven't seen any other buildings yet that increase housing. Monarchy gives housing. As well as aqueducts.

You start incurring growth penalties when your population is 1 below your housing level. Meaning an inland non river city starts getting growth penalties at 0 population. Each population you gain increases these penalties.

Also it will probably be fairly rare that bare deserts are next to many things that will get you adjacency bonuses.

Also...
Universities
Barracks/Stables
Lighthouse

all give housing

 

[BrokenBokken]

Also...
Universities
Barracks/Stables
Lighthouse

all give housing

That is good to know!

Now that I'm thinking about it you probably can't really rush housing because you can't rush districts correct? The only housing you could rush buy is granary... do we even know if you can rush buy buildings? I haven't seen the option in any LP

 

[Seek]

From my understanding on housing

On a river = 5
Coast = 3
In land = 1

Not exactly, but close!

Fresh water cities start with 5 housing, so the city center gives a base of 2, then +3 for fresh water and +1 for coast.

 

[BrokenBokken]

Not exactly, but close!

Fresh water cities start with 5 housing, so the city center gives a base of 2, then +3 for fresh water and +1 for coast.

I was really hoping the coast had a larger advantage in housing than just 1!

 

[Olleus]

So in other words, if you don't start near a river... reroll

I'd expect that a palace would provide some housing

 

[Seek]

I was really hoping the coast had a larger advantage in housing than just 1!

Me too, another point against coastal cities. :/

I'd expect that a palace would provide some housing

It provides 1 iirc (I'm afk atm but I think the cap starts with housing of six on fresh water).

 

[Hakan-i Cihan]

I'd expect that a palace would provide some housing

It provides 1 iirc (I'm afk atm but I think the cap starts with housing of six on fresh water).

I just checked Quill18's video, indeed the palace seem to provide +1 on housing. That is good to know.

 

[chazzycat]

So let me get this straight...with regards to housing

- Settling on the coast with no freshwater is better than settling inland with no freshwater
- Settling on the coast WITH freshwater is better than settling inland WITH freshwater

And this means coast is bad? When it's really nothing but a +1 bonus you wouldn't otherwise be getting?

Comparing river to coast is not the right comparison, because settling on the coast does not preclude settling by a river. The best sites will have both, and this is very accurate from a real world perspective as well.

 

[Hakan-i Cihan]

So let me get this straight...with regards to housing

- Settling on the coast with no freshwater is better than settling inland with no freshwater
- Settling on the coast WITH freshwater is better than settling inland WITH freshwater

And this means coast is bad? When it's really nothing but a +1 bonus you wouldn't otherwise be getting?

Comparing river to coast is not the right comparison, because settling on the coast does not preclude settling by a river. The best sites will have both, and this is very accurate from a real world perspective as well.

I just checked two videos (Marbozir's and Quill18's) in which they settled a 2nd city (with no effect of the palace). Marbozir settling at a river and Quill18 at coast with a river adjacent. But both cities had 5 housing. So apparently they do not stack and the feature with the highest value for housing is applied, so only fresh water(river) and not that of the coast.

 

[Atlas627]

So let me get this straight...with regards to housing

- Settling on the coast with no freshwater is better than settling inland with no freshwater
- Settling on the coast WITH freshwater is better than settling inland WITH freshwater

And this means coast is bad? When it's really nothing but a +1 bonus you wouldn't otherwise be getting?

Comparing river to coast is not the right comparison, because settling on the coast does not preclude settling by a river. The best sites will have both, and this is very accurate from a real world perspective as well.

They don't stack. River/Lake is better than Coast, and Coast is very very slightly better than no water at all (for housing).

 

[chazzycat]

I stand corrected. That seems counter-intuitive.

 

[joncnunn]

I stand corrected. That seems counter-intuitive.

It's basically going to encourage if you start near a river near the coast to found the city on the river one hex away from the coast; saving the commercial district for a tile that is both on the river and coastal (and adjoins the city); with the harbor adjoining the commercial district.

It does appear to be historic: London, Paris, New Orleans all being on a river near but not on the coast.

 

[Craig_Sutter]

Rome as well...

 

[Browd]

And Philadelphia, Montreal, Calcutta, and many other cities around the world.

 

[Cobalt_Blue]

OK so everyone is talking about the military disadvantages of settling on the coast but no one is talking about the military disadvantages of NOT settling on the coast, i.e. easier "blockading" and destruction of naval production capability. (Note: I'm operating under the assumption that a fully pillaged harbor will be unable to make naval units until repaired)

Let's say I'm England and aiming for naval superiority over an enemy who builds all their cities no closer than 2 or 3 tiles from the ocean. When I declare war I swoop in with my armada and, after dispatching their local naval forces, pillage the **** out of city A's harbor district (which cannot defend itself and doesn't have castle walls), giving me loot AND completely eliminating that city's ability to create more naval forces. Now the city has to spend all its production and the next 10 turns repairing the harbor before it can even start more naval stuff. In the meantime, I use those 10 turns to take out the next city harbor down the coast. Maybe I send a ship back now and then just to keep repillaging, or maybe I leave a unit there to do so. Either way, once you manage to get all or even most of their harbor districts into disrepair they are stuck in a vicious cycle they have basically no way out of.

Again, this is operating under the assumption that a fully pillaged harbor can't make new naval units. If that's been shown to be incorrect, you can ignore this whole post i guess ^_^

 

[Thormodr]

OK so everyone is talking about the military disadvantages of settling on the coast but no one is talking about the military disadvantages of NOT settling on the coast, i.e. easier "blockading" and destruction of naval production capability. (Note: I'm operating under the assumption that a fully pillaged harbor will be unable to make naval units until repaired)

Let's say I'm England and aiming for naval superiority over an enemy who builds all their cities no closer than 2 or 3 tiles from the ocean. When I declare war I swoop in with my armada and, after dispatching their local naval forces, pillage the **** out of city A's harbor district (which cannot defend itself and doesn't have castle walls), giving me loot AND completely eliminating that city's ability to create more naval forces. Now the city has to spend all its production and the next 10 turns repairing the harbor before it can even start more naval stuff. In the meantime, I use those 10 turns to take out the next city harbor down the coast. Maybe I send a ship back now and then just to keep repillaging, or maybe I leave a unit there to do so. Either way, once you manage to get all or even most of their harbor districts into disrepair they are stuck in a vicious cycle they have basically no way out of.

Again, this is operating under the assumption that a fully pillaged harbor can't make new naval units. If that's been shown to be incorrect, you can ignore this whole post i guess ^_^

Valid points there.

It'll be interesting to see if it'll play out as you say.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Point 2 is valid later in the game. I am aware of point 3, but the thing is that initial population growth is very important. If you get a penalty already at turn 1 (-50% growth if I remember correctly) it will influence your game a lot. Coastal starts already have definitly more cons than pro's, additionally your city will also be penalizied after reaching pop 3 (considering you didn't build any farms yet).

Housing doesn't have linear effect on city growth. If you have enough housing, it doesn't matter how much. Once population is close to housing, growth become slower till the point of full stop once pop is over housing for some amount.

The shore start gives enough housing to start growth at full speed, if I recall correctly, and with additional housing from farms, etc. the city could support itself till Aqueduct.

 

[Underground Man]

Hi guys, I created an account just to post on this thread. I can't say I've read EVERY post in this discussion, but I've read most of them. I don't think anyone has made my arguments yet. The general argument seems to be that there is less incentive than ever to build a "coastal" city (due to space requirements for districts and poor ocean tile yields), therefore making naval units almost irrelevant, which in turn makes building coastal cities even LESS valuable since you don't need a Navy?

While I'm on the fence about the value of building cities directly on the water, one thing I'm absolutely convinced about is that naval units will be MORE valuable than ever. The reason I think people aren't seeing the value of naval units is because we are still thinking like Civ V players, and not Civ VI players.

In Civ V you tried to build a coastal city on an inlet with as few ocean tiles as possible, or in a location with a multitude of ocean resources. Primarily you did this so you could concentrate the more valuable ocean trade routes in one city, have a city to build a navy from, and (to a lesser extent) build wonders that required you to be on an ocean tile. Perhaps you might have a couple of cities that meet these conditions, but otherwise you would try to build them so they were 3 tiles away from the ocean so you maximized your land tiles, and weren't stuck with useless ocean tiles. Maybe later on you would grab another coastal city in a relatively useless area (desert/ tundra/ mountainous area) to grab a strategic/ luxury resource, for strategic reasons, or because there was simply no where else to build. Since there were only a couple of "coastal" cities and some relatively worthless late game cities navies weren't that important. One thing you definitely didn't want to do was build a city 1, or even 2 tiles from the ocean, that had a lot of ocean tiles, but couldn't utilize them. How many times did you say to yourself "if only I could build that city 1 tile over so I could get that coal/iron and still get all of those ocean resource tiles, this would be the perfect city site", and you delayed settling there, and didn't settle there at all?

This led to the mentality that navies are only good for "coastal" cities, since in general inland cities would require a ranged attack of 4 and be out of range of most ships. Maybe you'd get lucky and have a tile in range or at least be able to attack land units. In general, there was a no mans land 1 to 2 tiles away from the coast were you just didn't build cities if you could avoid it.

As many of you have said, this is no longer the case. Your terrain is constrained by a number of factors, including rival civs, city states, mountains, dessert, tundra, swaths of forest/ plains. Like any good Civ player you will try to maximize the terrain given to you. This naturally includes ocean resources. So, you will now be placing MANY cities within 1 to 2 tiles of the ocean (maybe on a river to get the nice housing bonus), and MANY more cities will now be in range of your naval units. You want to build that harbor so you can trade from more ports and build ships in more cities. Those ocean resources right next to the shore are now much more accessible and you WILL build inland cities maximize their use. Maybe you build that city in that "ideal" spot 1 tile away from the ocean that you shied away from before because you can get the coal and still use all those ocean resources? Now Naval power is much more relevant. Frigates with a range of 2, battleships with a range of 3, a rocket cruiser (with say a range of 4), and aircraft carries now feel like they are able to project much more power.

But that isn't all. Another thing I haven't seen people talk much about is cliffs. Cliffs now create strategic bottlenecks on coasts, just like mountain ranges do. There are 3 ways to defend these. A navy, a unit on land (maybe in a fort), and a strategically placed COASTAL city. You will need an offensive navy to weaken all 3 and coasts are now more defensible than ever. Now since a navy is so important it DOES mater if your harbor can be pillaged while a city can't, and how many cities you can dedicate to building naval units from. The fact that it gets a healing bonus if it doesn't get completely surrounded is just icing on the cake.

As others have mentioned, with the housing bonus, the fact that coastal trade routes are likely more valuable (and far reaching), the ability others have mentioned to postpone building harbor districts till later, the eureka bonuses for research, and the fact that there is no penalty for the number of cities all make coastal cities just a bit more palatable.

Another factor that hasn't been mentioned is the city state dynamics. Naval trade routes can reach city states that are otherwise cut off by land and might have influence/ religion/ quest perks like they do in Civ V. Having that coastal city at the edge of your empire that can just reach distant city states is valuable.

Also there are new coastal natural wonders like the Cliffs of Dover.

I do agree that some additional perks like faster ship building if your city center is on the coast, or maybe some select tiles (like reefs, kelp, coral or more abundant traditional ocean resources) would be nice.

On a side note, how awesome is the cliff scaling promotion?!? I want more scout upgrades. Like Berserkers (special unit for the Vikings), Conquistadors (Special unit for the Spanish), guerillas, Partisans (special unit for the French to replace the guerillas),marine, Gurkhas (Indian special unit to replace marine), special forces (maybe who also serve as your paratroopers), and Navy Seals (American special unit to replace special forces).

TLDR: There might be less incentive than ever to build coastal cities, but navies are almost certainly more important.

 

[Underground Man]

Also, if you built a city 1 tile from a ocean, built a harbor and then build a science district in between, wouldn't you get an adjacency bonus? So you might want to place your districts near the ocean, which would then make them more susceptible to pillaging/bombardment from the ocean, and therefore make it more necessary to have a navy to defend them.

Honestly, if a city is within a tile of the ocean, it'll still feel like a "coastal" city to me for all intents and purposes.

 

[qadams]

Hi guys, I created an account just to post on this thread. I can't say I've read EVERY post in this discussion, but I've read most of them. I don't think anyone has made my arguments yet. The general argument seems to be that there is less incentive than ever to build a "coastal" city (due to space requirements for districts and poor ocean tile yields), therefore making naval units almost irrelevant, which in turn makes building coastal cities even LESS valuable since you don't need a Navy?

While I'm on the fence about the value of building cities directly on the water, one thing I'm absolutely convinced about is that naval units will be MORE valuable than ever. The reason I think people aren't seeing the value of naval units is because we are still thinking like Civ V players, and not Civ VI players.

In Civ V you tried to build a coastal city on an inlet with as few ocean tiles as possible, or in a location with a multitude of ocean resources. Primarily you did this so you could concentrate the more valuable ocean trade routes in one city, have a city to build a navy from, and (to a lesser extent) build wonders that required you to be on an ocean tile. Perhaps you might have a couple of cities that meet these conditions, but otherwise you would try to build them so they were 3 tiles away from the ocean so you maximized your land tiles, and weren't stuck with useless ocean tiles. Maybe later on you would grab another coastal city in a relatively useless area (desert/ tundra/ mountainous area) to grab a strategic/ luxury resource, for strategic reasons, or because there was simply no where else to build. Since there were only a couple of "coastal" cities and some relatively worthless late game cities navies weren't that important. One thing you definitely didn't want to do was build a city 1, or even 2 tiles from the ocean, that had a lot of ocean tiles, but couldn't utilize them. How many times did you say to yourself "if only I could build that city 1 tile over so I could get that coal/iron and still get all of those ocean resource tiles, this would be the perfect city site", and you delayed settling there, and didn't settle there at all?

This led to the mentality that navies are only good for "coastal" cities, since in general inland cities would require a ranged attack of 4 and be out of range of most ships. Maybe you'd get lucky and have a tile in range or at least be able to attack land units. In general, there was a no mans land 1 to 2 tiles away from the coast were you just didn't build cities if you could avoid it.

As many of you have said, this is no longer the case. Your terrain is constrained by a number of factors, including rival civs, city states, mountains, dessert, tundra, swaths of forest/ plains. Like any good Civ player you will try to maximize the terrain given to you. This naturally includes ocean resources. So, you will now be placing MANY cities within 1 to 2 tiles of the ocean (maybe on a river to get the nice housing bonus), and MANY more cities will now be in range of your naval units. You want to build that harbor so you can trade from more ports and build ships in more cities. Those ocean resources right next to the shore are now much more accessible and you WILL build inland cities maximize their use. Maybe you build that city in that "ideal" spot 1 tile away from the ocean that you shied away from before because you can get the coal and still use all those ocean resources? Now Naval power is much more relevant. Frigates with a range of 2, battleships with a range of 3, a rocket cruiser (with say a range of 4), and aircraft carries now feel like they are able to project much more power.

But that isn't all. Another thing I haven't seen people talk much about is cliffs. Cliffs now create strategic bottlenecks on coasts, just like mountain ranges do. There are 3 ways to defend these. A navy, a unit on land (maybe in a fort), and a strategically placed COASTAL city. You will need an offensive navy to weaken all 3 and coasts are now more defensible than ever. Now since a navy is so important it DOES mater if your harbor can be pillaged while a city can't, and how many cities you can dedicate to building naval units from. The fact that it gets a healing bonus if it doesn't get completely surrounded is just icing on the cake.

As others have mentioned, with the housing bonus, the fact that coastal trade routes are likely more valuable (and far reaching), the ability others have mentioned to postpone building harbor districts till later, the eureka bonuses for research, and the fact that there is no penalty for the number of cities all make coastal cities just a bit more palatable.

Another factor that hasn't been mentioned is the city state dynamics. Naval trade routes can reach city states that are otherwise cut off by land and might have influence/ religion/ quest perks like they do in Civ V. Having that coastal city at the edge of your empire that can just reach distant city states is valuable.

Also there are new coastal natural wonders like the Cliffs of Dover.

I do agree that some additional perks like faster ship building if your city center is on the coast, or maybe some select tiles (like reefs, kelp, coral or more abundant traditional ocean resources) would be nice.

On a side note, how awesome is the cliff scaling promotion?!? I want more scout upgrades. Like Berserkers (special unit for the Vikings), Conquistadors (Special unit for the Spanish), guerillas, Partisans (special unit for the French to replace the guerillas),marine, Gurkhas (Indian special unit to replace marine), special forces (maybe who also serve as your paratroopers), and Navy Seals (American special unit to replace special forces).

TLDR: There might be less incentive than ever to build coastal cities, but navies are almost certainly more important.

Great first post, Underground Man! Where have you been hiding all our lives?