Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Artifex1, May 13, 2014.
If you move 1 hex you lose 1 extra resource but gain a coast spot for a city,.
What is better?
If you truly don't care, I'd always go with coastal cities every single time.
But if you want much more balanced decision, screenshot will be necessary.
Depends on the resource and the map.
Most of the time, the coastal spot is probably better.
Marble could be worth it, if it's the only one near your city. Coastal may not be worth it on some maps (ones with almost no water) or if the body of water is so small that you probably won't be able to get many trade routes out of it.
Totally addicted to the ocean. But, holy mackerel, what happened to all the fish? There's about ten fish resources on the whole map.
Coasts are awesome, they're definitely a great bonus, that I try to get most of the time. If it's only a single resource, it's probably the right thing to do, especially if you're going to go tall anyway and your city is going to grow into the fourth ring rather quickly. You don't get the tile bonus, but the resource will be yours eventually. A city that's not founded at a coast on the other hand will never be able to benefit from all the coastal bonuses. But again, like almost everything in Civ, what's right to do 90% of the time still has its exceptions - if you're asking for a specific location, then yeah, a screenshot would help evaluating the spot.
If there's lots of seaport cities (particularly capitals) you can build up a navy and TAKE THEM.
So yeah, I like a port city.
coastal. those sea internal trade routes are awesome. you can always build another city to get the extra resource
If you have other coastal cities the coast without a doubt for food cargo.
coastal would be better in most cases; also consider that if you plant a city one hex inland, you will have many sea tiles in city radius without a lighthouse, giving you only 1 food if worked.
Coast. Always coast. Then later, 3 points in Exploration for +3 production and +3 happiness in every city. That's basically as good as an extra resource (though, much later).
Maybe I'm crazy, but on non-Pangaea maps I try to build every city on the coast. With max 1-2 inland cities only in militarily important spots or for unusually juicy resources (uranium).
I can't stand how the AI makes the opposite judgment. I've seen whole empires near the coast, but where every city is 2 hexes away. It's maddening. Especially with non-raze-able capitals.
If there is a river I don't care about if coastal or not. I love Rivers and Lakes. I'm just not man of Sea.
So, if you listen my suggestion, go with Rivers not coastal tiles.
I also prefer coastal cities and find it strange that the AI doesn't recognize its value.
However, there is the downside in that coastal cities are more vulnerable to naval attack. They can get attacked by naval melee ships or embarked melee units and more naval ranged ships can get within range to bombard it.
It may have been a deliberate decision by the developers - it makes some kind of sense given how useless the AI is at naval warfare. In any case, the bonuses the AI already receives would dwarf any advantage from the coast - for example, it's not like the AI does anything useful with the piles of surplus gold it already builds up, so what good would some extra gpt from trade routes do?
If the AI were better at defensive naval wars, that would be good because then the AI might be able to build a coastal city that the player wasn't able to pick off at just about any time they felt like it. It would also be good if the AI were better at offensive naval wars, because then the player would have a bit more to think about in deciding whether it was worth the risk of putting their cities on the coast. It would add a whole lot strategically if players had to think seriously about building a fleet, perhaps quite early in the game, if they wanted to protect their coastal assets.
+3/3 isnt that big in the mid/late game, and happiness can be obtained from other policies (like honor - and defensive buildings are maint-less instead of maritime). the main attractor for the coastal spots is seafood imho, its yields are stunning
Depends if there's another civilization in another island then you will definitely need a coast.
Another one for coastal because sea food trade routes are just awesome. You can get your second city from size 1 to size 5 in 10 turns or so by running a food trade route to it.
Another vote for coast.
Coast spots are not automatically good. Consider that an ocean tile is on par with a mountain or plain desert tile, and coasts are almost as bad. In almost all cases you'd rather work a specialist than a non-resource coast tile.
So, consider that a coast spot with 50% water has just removed your available city tiles down by half! This starts to put it into perspective.
The best coast spots have many resources and minimal (ideally ZERO) non-resource water tiles. Plus, the more resources, the better seaports are.
Is a city spot with 50% water or less, zero water resources, even worth it? Especially if it has a lot of hills and no river/lake, and few land resources? I suggest to avoid that spot... there are surely better places inland to put your cities.
So, this thread might be better if it asked, "What's better? An extra resource, or a coast spot with few non-resource water tiles?" Or similar.
ps also keeping in mind that a critical strategic resource, or 2 lux resources you don't have, is generally always a good spot regardless of coast or land.
I love coast, but it's sad if there are no water resources. I'm thinking of changing my mapscript just because all the coastal resources seem to have dissapeared. I've had plenty of games where I just could not get more than 1 sea resource in any coastal spot nearby. On those games I have to balance by picking bays or such which minimize water tile numbers.
Separate names with a comma.