Why coastal cities are better than inland cities

Sorry if there are typos and its a bit long, am just unloading and going as am a bit busy

The main problem with coastal comparison is if you do the math on paper it can seem good or even great. But if you play a lot of coastal games (I mean like 30+) then you you just start saying it sucks without even thinking about why, you just know you suffer in so many starts.
For a start half your territory is water and some (sometimes quite a lot) is ocean and unusable until seasteads. The coastal water is 1 food 1 gold, just pointless. But of you do get some amber or turtles you get rather excited because it is not that often you do and the rest suck a lot. I do agree fish and crab seem great. I mean fish is a bit of gold better than swamp (woooo) while crab gets you 3 gold (3 is lots right?) Reefs are a nice addition until they appear at a river mouth and the mothers often do because they just stopped me putting a harbor there (why can I not destroy a reef?) So what is often forgotten is I have 4 desert tiles, these reduce my viable land by twice as much as any landlubber city. Hils appear at coasts but an awful lot less than next to mountain chains. You get happy when you have 3 hill tiles within 2 rings on the coast while it is standard for inland cities.

So the theme so far with the coast, just looking at the water is gold. So what value is gold? Why does everyone (including Firaxis) make the assumption that 2 gold = 1 production? Buying units is 4 times the production, buying buildings is 4x the production and yes, they just nerfed upgrade gold and therefore nerfed gold civs like coastal civs. Does gold get me science or culture, no. So it is inherently worse when you are getting it in quantities greater than what is needed for maintenance and upgrade. 1:3 to me is still too low but lets used it. So that means a 1 food 1 gold tile is a lot worse than plains and we know how crap plains are. A 1 food 3 gold crab is good as ... you got it, plains. And the way I look at it a commercial CS should be giving me at least 6 gold but nope, I get less of an inherently worse reward.

So lets get something clear with settling. For a start half of my games start without me on the coast so I have to move if I can even see the coast. the majority of starts are not on coastal river and the housing is just appalling then. I ask for more housing because this area is just terrible. Often forced to build granaries which means I have to beeline them and build them with poor production (not enough gold early) and that means I am not beelining harbours or Commercial districts.

Mountains are on coasts yes... and sometimes you can get luck and get more than 1 but +3 adjacency mountains are very rare and typically are completely useless for adjacency of other districts... but sometimes they are at the mouth of a river like a luxury is, stopping you build there... and with coastal cities it is not about I can build at option b because it is 90% as good. If you cannot settle on a specific tile the difference can be large. And harbour triangles (I claim copyright) are a false economy. You are mounting a large gold approach at the cost of a trade route and with no science or culture yet produced. So everyone shouted... "Free Inquiry!"

I got excited when I saw it being introduced and did threads on its possibilities... and this I think is the issue with the OP, looking at the paper value of things. Upon playing free inquiry you realise is is a honey trap. You can only use it for 2 ages and yes you get ahead in science but come out the other end when people are getting huge science bonuses now from many cards, CS and abilities so their cities are on 15-30 science each... and suddenly you find yourself on a few fisherman occasionally thinking of a better way to mend their nets. If that was not bad enough, free inquiry does require a golden age and you can often forget that on immortal +... a golden age is a lot harder to get if you are concentrating on granaries and beelining harbours. In my experience on Emperor about 1 game in 4 I can get a golden if I am trying to get 3 cities out with habours and commercial hubs before classical. The other big problem with free inquiry is it last 2 eras. That and a lack of science after make it a honey trap.

Fisheries have only one use, and that is a large food source so you can grow above your limited housing by force. And these fishing nets all disappear when a hurricane comes. Hurricanes truly rip a coastal city back to the dark ages. Hurricane are HUGE, why in gods name does a CAT4 cover the same area as a CAT5 and do similar damage? and to add to it I have been hit by sandstorms and blizzards in coastal cities. The thing I have to worry about least is droughts, the thing I really miss on coasts is volcanoes and fissures, they are a huge free gift.

One of the biggest problems is science, getting it is the lesser problem. The tech tree is just crap for coastal cities, I beeline harbours which is not fast and I still have slingers and warriors at T40 when chariots and archers are on the move with AI's. Playing a coastal game is a gamble. The commercial hub triangle is also an issue here and you will find the best way to play is in fact a campus, harbour triangle because you need the science to survive and now they nerfed cartography coastal cities got it right up the buttress, once again. I need granaries as well, and I want to get to shipbuilding as soon as possible for quads because my galleys do not cut it (unless Phoenicia or Norway) and I want to send my settlers to sea. I want to get to commercial hubs, granaries, archery, bronze working (I am England), celestial navigation and shipbuilding.... just what do I research first? Placing harbors at shipbuilding is about the most sensible solution and I played maybe 40 games with this change in place and it makes the game more playable but in no way OP. The 2 tree leaf to harbors is a JOKE. People were building harbors before libraries.

To be fair we must look at this in a balanced way. Lighthouses do now improve our coastal areas to 2 food so they are now 2 food and 1 gold, a touch more than grassland but they pump up resources which is nice. The +2 adjacency for harbours can be pushed to 5-7 if you are lucky with adjacency and IF you are lucky in that regard then the double adjacency card will put you at say 12 which is the same as +4 production.... +4 production IF using a card and having got your city just right. It is not as great as you think when you convert it to production... but the one saving grace is shipyards. Shipyards with then give you +12 production or +18 with Reyna but I must stress this is in 1 city with Reyna (sacrificing Magnus/Pingala/Amani benefits) and the lucky one or two other cities are normally around +10 production. A seaport can give great gold on top and you can get some really fat golden coastal cities later but when you start 3:1 the gold it is not that great for the loss of production.

Double trade did help but I get no road benefit from that and it is hard to protect at sea.
Bottom line is coastal cities come out much less than par with inland cities and more importantly you have 0 flexibility with them. You have to build in a specific way for a golden result that can also to a degree be mimicked by an inland city if it chooses to go that route. With coastal cities you sort of have to play the naval game which is just dire. yes your frigates are OP and you can rule the waves easily. That is half the problem, it is just snooze time and now with nitre restrictions is just more effort for an dull approach.

You play a civ with 1-2 coastal cities and you do not really notice but play a vanilla start civ like England where you need the coast for a lot of cities and its more of a struggle than you can see on paper unless you really think hard.

If your city makes 60GPT you may think that’s really good, but do you think that if your city is on +20 production? I would argue its closer to +15 production.

You cannot put a civilian on ocean so it has no value until seasteads. The adjacency value of mountains people always talk about. They are both “yields’ but I know which I would prefer.
A great analysis.

I love coastal cities, and I largely agree with this here.

I do think that it's difficult to always compare because every game/setup/map is different, and even down to an individual city, so one coastal city may be godly compared to another, and better than another inland city, but still pale in production etc. compared to an inland capital for example. The maths do make it still seem like an inland city is more favorable.

Coast is opportune for some trade benefits, but really what it seems to grant access to is boats to conquer more land since you can't appropriately colonize without a modded map script. I love gold from coastal trade, but it is more of a supplement than something you can actually build a strategy. Of course, who knows with the reduced production cost for those ridiculously expensive buildings in the new patch.

I will be happier once they make Cat 4 hurricanes nerfed, increase ways to repair coastal cities, and make coastal cities truly valuable spots for insane amounts of gold. Right now it's a bit more, but you can find ways to still get close to as much or even more in some situations with inland cities, and those are easier to repair from disasters.
 
I find you can either go full land power or full sea power but rarely both. Certainly hugging the coast with early caravel garrisons would dissuade attackers even on the other side of the world. The garrison strength is so high and the opportunity for siege so low that it just absorbs damage.
 
Coast is opportune for some trade benefits, but really what it seems to grant access to is boats to conquer more land since you can't appropriately colonize without a modded map script. I love gold from coastal trade, but it is more of a supplement than something you can actually build a strategy.
Gold is the easiest way to win a Diplomatic Victory (although, as Victoria said, it's easy to generate way more Gold than you need - I just won a Diplo Vic the other day as Rome, and I had more money than I actually needed - I spent 20,000 gold on my final Diplomatic Point, just because I had nothing else I needed to spend it on). For the purposes of this thread, though, coastal cities don't really contribute more to your gold than inland cities do, so we couldn't say that coastal cities are better for a Diplomatic Victory. Coastal cities can be better for a Cultural Victory, if other civs are too far away to reach with a Trade Route from your landlocked cities (because Trade Routes provides bonuses to Tourism, and Trade Routes over sea tiles have double range). I'm interested to see how the June update changes the Diplomatic Victory.
 
I recently saved a city with the admiral I got with the Masoleum. The admiral made a ship into an armada which gave me a 42 strength galley. I then used a quardrieme armada to kill knights lol.
 
Gold is the easiest way to win a Diplomatic Victory (although, as Victoria said, it's easy to generate way more Gold than you need - I just won a Diplo Vic the other day as Rome, and I had more money than I actually needed - I spent 20,000 gold on my final Diplomatic Point, just because I had nothing else I needed to spend it on). For the purposes of this thread, though, coastal cities don't really contribute more to your gold than inland cities do, so we couldn't say that coastal cities are better for a Diplomatic Victory. Coastal cities can be better for a Cultural Victory, if other civs are too far away to reach with a Trade Route from your landlocked cities (because Trade Routes provides bonuses to Tourism, and Trade Routes over sea tiles have double range). I'm interested to see how the June update changes the Diplomatic Victory.
Sure it can be. I, too, won one of my two most recent diplo victories as Rome. Swimming in gold.
 
I'll start saying I've always considered prod to gold ratio to be 1:4, since that is how game adjusts it. Furthermore, production is early buffed in a wide range of ways through policies - +100% or +50% ones. Not like gold, that you must wait to democracy to get a proper buff - 25%, not that great.

There is the fact you can have a great coastal city to make gold to support your inland cities, buying buildings or unit upgrades for example. However, if you do the math it turns easy. Building a Harbour and a Lighthouse cost the same as a Commercial Hub and a Market. I would say Harbours are more expensive since they require to invest on a different science tree, but I won't go deeper into that question. At this point with the district and a building you'll be generating more gold with the CH, as they guarantee 2 gold if placed on a river plus 2 gold from the Market, and those initial +4 Harbours are not that common.

But what happens when lighthouses start to shine? +1 food on all coastal tiles is great! Well, they aren't that great. Just because working a buffed Crabs tile is 2 food 3 gold, arguably worse than a grassland hill UNWORKED. And that's talking about resources... a 2 food 1 gold coastal tile is MUCH worse than that.

But what happens when shipyards start to shine? +1 prod for each adjacency bonus is great! They again aren't that great, because having to invest 290 prod to have let's say a +5 prod bonus in a good case means: it will 'pay' itself in nearly 60 turns. By the time you've built that shipyard for 290 prod, you could have built one library - 90 prod - and 4/5 of a University - the other 200 prod.

And then? In the first case you'll have a building that will pay itself in 60 turns, and THEN will start to give benefits. In the second one you'll have a library, 4/5 of a university and 60 turns more to finish it and to build whatever you want.

Let's say a city have 15 production, hard to achieve in a coastal one by the way. With CH + Market or Harbour + Lighthouse built.

You can spend 20 turns building a shipyard, 4,5 turns building a library - 15 prod + 5 prod from shipyard - and 12,5 turns building a university. That's a total amount of 37 turns.

OR

You can spend 6 turns building a library and 16,5 for the university, for a total amount of 22,5 turns.

That clearly says by the time you'd finish the university in the shipyard city you can have invested 14,5 turns x 15 prod = 220 prod in a Research Lab - nearly 40%.

So the shipyard one will build a RL in 29 turns while the other will do it in 24.

AND taking into account the first one will be 24,5 turns giving no benefits, and the second one will do from the 7th turn - science from library.

All the above supposing you can reach the same production on both cities, clearly unusual.

In conclusion, shipyards are not the solution, as they're proven to be less productive than just build what you want. Since gold makes the role of supporting your victory condition and science for example DO win games.

The maths is clear for me.
 
early game is key , anything coming to its own at or after industrial is just not on the same level as the rest. a unique archer unit is better than a unique tank/bomber since you can use the archer for longer periods and at a time where it matters , where the defence against it doesnt exist. a unique building/district is the same.
harbors and commercial hubs produce the about the same gold via buildings and CS but landtiles are more valuable without any extra situational bonuses that are necessary to make water tiles as good as land tiles ( why though? harbors have always been more lucrative than simple marketplaces )
once you get huge amounts of gold game is over BUT the keyword is "once" . if you play a MP or with many aggressive neighbours a coastal city is not my go to strategy to survive
early game gold is not as much worth as production and late game huge gold income is always easier than big production numbers ( could change with this patch , if yes than that is even one less reason to go for coastal )
 
Excellent city spots have a river, just enough mountains for a good campus, plenty of hills and plenty of food. You're lucky if you get one such spot near your starting location on a small map.

Exceptional city locations aside, 80% of your cities will be fillers. Filler cities can probably get up to 2-3 districts max, because your core cities soak up all the good tiles, so filler cities tend to stay small and generally weak.

Great merchants aside, for a filler city, a coastal one with a harbor is superior to an inland commercial hub city in every way. It provides income, production and it's own source food that leaves the hinterlands to be worked by your core cities. With two adjacent sea resources, the harbor jumps to +4 gold +4 production (double with the card) and adds one trade route. With a commercial hub and two trade city states thrown in for good measure, you're looking at some serious GPT.

The ideal coastal filler city:
- is coastal and can have a harbor
- is grabbing strategic/lux resources
- can use close to zero coastal tiles and still have production
- uses its own sources of food
- can grow up to size 10 without taking tiles from core cities
- can plop down victory districts without too much investment
- generates income that you re-invest into your core cities

Commercial hubs on the other hand are usually faster to get, great merchants are far more valuable, all of which makes them ideal for your core cities.

OR

You can go ICS where coastal cities make a fine addition, because of all things stated above.
 
Last edited:
Interesting approach Bibor. However, I'll try to point out some reasons why those fillers are better inland.

Filler cities can probably get up to 2-3 districts max

True enough. But what's the point in having fillers than can only generate gold? Production has proven itself to be way better in terms of efficiency.

It provides income, production and it's own source food that leaves the hinterlands to be worked by your core cities.

I'll leave that in "it produces income". Because having to invest in a district and 2 buildings to have a decent source of food and a crappy? source of production is not worth it in my opinion. Reasons in post #46.

With a commercial hub and two trade city states thrown in for good measure, you're looking at some serious GPT.

I'll insist. Two districts and two buildings at least to... generate gold? If you invest all this production in whatever is gonna make you win (call it campuses, theatres or whatever), you'll be in a better spot for sure.

can use close to zero coastal tiles and still have production

What am I missing? Besides using your pantheon advantage to prod on fishing boats... where do that production come from?

can plop down victory districts without too much investment

Err... holy sites are much better inland (mountains and forests), campuses are much better inland (mountains, rainforests and geothermal fissures), and theatres are much better inland (cities have way better production rates to build wonders, or to stack districts for adjacency reasons).

To be honest, any number above 2 coastal cities (to meet cartography eureka, and to have trading posts in each side of the continent) is a serious waste of resources for me.
 
Production has proven itself to be way better in terms of efficiency.

Yes, if you want to keep production where it is. But if you want to transfer production, the only way to do so is a) trade routes, b) gold. Both of which are given by a single district.
I'll always prefer strong cities with a commercial hub over coastal ones, but coastal ones have their role.

Coastal cities are at least coastal, inland cities can be truly terrible.
 
Honestly it's as if people forget that the only difference between a coastal and inland city is that the former has some water tiles.

In theory, until you have enough population/districts to work all land tiles, the benefits of coastal settling are all there without the drawbacks. And with an investment in one title, water tiles become farms with gold.
 
Last edited:
In Civ V BNW, coastal cities used to be the really good, so what has changed?
1. Coastal tile yields: In Civ V, coast tiles have a starting yield output of 2 food on par with grassland. In Civ VI, ocean tile yields are on par with flat tundra and coast tiles are worst than flat grassland or plains.
2. Housing: In Civ V, no housing limitation. In Civ VI, purely coastal cities only get +3 housing. You can only put improvements which provide 0.5 housing on sea resources, whereas you can spam farms everywhere on flat land for inland cities.
3. Trade routes: In Civ V, trade routes over water generated twice the yield output. (Nothing was more overpowered than double food TRs). In Civ VI, you only get some extra gold for trade routes over water since a recent patch.
 
Coastal cities are obviously not as good as inland cities over time. That is pretty well established. They're also horrible early on (for every non sea based civ): they destroy your early tech progress, and any sort of benefits hits too late. Sure, they can be OK "filler cities", but it makes no sense to have a CIV game relegate coastal cities to something that only in a very few instances make sense. They need to make sense to settle from turn one.

What they need is some sort of potential for an early boon. Everyone and their grandmother has talked about bringing back the extra trade route per lighthouse, and I honestly don't think that's such a bad idea (especially now with GS), but an even better idea might be some sort of incentive to make the sea vs. land tech choice early on a bit harder. There's already a connection to religion (Astrology is a prerequisite), so I would suggest something like having the lighthouse give some sort of combination of +gold and +faith to improved tiles adjacent to rivers (lets say two of each and double the original yield of the tile), and also give internal trade routes some sort of bonus per improved tile. Coastal cities typically has 0-3 (most often 1) improvable resources adjacent to rivers, with zero or one available within the initial borders.

In terms of history, it would refer to harbour cities as nexuses for trade, where other cultures and peoples came from afar to buy and sell goods, but also, as a by effect, intermingle with the locals.

This would potentially make a coastal tech focus make sense from the get go, and if you're lucky with your spawn, make for a city that would get both incremental advantages (being dependant on border expansion) early on that are powerful, but not broken (remember, you would have to forgo land tech early on, which would be a major disadvantage); and also represent a focus on coastal cities as a boon for trade (in historical terms, be a hot spot where goods and money come to multiply).
 
I do think that it would be cool if they buffed fishing resources and/or the lighthouse yields.
 
You know, I really like the way Coastal Citiea work at the moment.

I like how there is a split between Cities on Rivers, that have no housing issues, and can grow tall, and smaller non-river Coastals that are smaller. The tall cities can be very tall. With a few hills, they're really not all that different to inland tall Cities in terms of raw output (although they usually have less chops), but they have different options and there's some nuances that are very fun. The smaller Cities are also very cool - good gold from their Harbour and tiles, and I often route trade routes threw them to benefit from trading posts and better yields. These smaller Cities often pick up culture from a Coloseum etc.

Coastal Cities are soft targets for Barbs and attacking AI. But that's fun too, in its own way. You have to not take them for granted.

I like how the tech tree is laid out for ocean and naval stuff. @Victoria and others have raised some valid criticisms about the placement of Harbours in the tech tree, and I'm not actually disagreeing with those. But I like the logic behind it (basically, I think the intention is you start with sort of quasi-harbours because Coastal Cities can launch ships from Shipbuilding, so the actual Harbour tech represents a kinda step up from that; and generally the game drives you to get harbour tech a bit later rather than sooner, to help drag out exploration).

But Coastal Cities - and more generally Harbours and Naval - do have problems. I'm increasingly of the view that the fault lays with other mechanics, not Coastal Cities etc. Gold is too plentiful and not that useful overall (in part because chopping is so strong); loyalty is tough on new Coastal Cities particularly from the mid game onwards; Commercial Hubs are way too easy to get to and trade routes are too easy to get.

I think the whole gold economy of Civ could maybe use a look at some point. There needs to be less easy gold, more gold demanded through maintenance, and maybe more you can do with gold that's unique. Frankly, I don't think tweaking the gold economy is the highest priority for Civ, but it is something that isn't quite right. And unless gold is more valuable - because it's harder to get and is more useful - then Coastal Cities are always going to be a little lacklustre because they don't have a good niche to fill.

And I categorically don't want trade route stacking back. Too much micro.

But. If we were going for a quick fix, this is what I'd suggest:

1. Buff Coastals and or Harbours just a little (but only a little). I'm not sure more housing is the solution (I think that would sort of screw up the river / non-river distinction). Maybe God of the Sea should be a Policy Card? Maybe Coastal Cities get +1 hammer at Celestial Navigation and another +1 at Mass Production? Maybe Harbours are just flat out cheaper than other Districts? Dunno. But it doesn't need to be anything massive.

2. Nerf Commercial Hubs and Markets, at least in terms of Gold and or Trade Routes. Nothing drastic; just enough to balance them with Harbours given that, unlike CHs, Harbours are on a leaf tech and are being built by Cities with usually less production and Harbours don't give you Great Merchants. Like, maybe Markets don't give you trade routes until you unlock Mercantilism (you'd probably need to have another free trade route through the tech tree if you did that)? Or maybe Markets (and other CH buildings) don't give all their gold when built, but instead their gold output goes up as you unlock certain Civics or based on your Government Tier? Or maybe Markets don't give any Gold but buff Gold from luxuries instead (making Markets more situational)?

3. Make recovering from Disasters easier. One idea: get rid of Liang's disaster promotion, and instead have a Policy Card that makes all Cities with a Governor immune from Storms and or allows Cities with Govenors to recover faster. Or give Liang a promotion that lets her repair Districts with Gold. Whatever. I'm happy to have disaster recover take effort and tax my economy. But at the moment it's just GG for my Coastals hit by inclement weather.

If FXS had the time, I'd also have some mechanic that just ratchet up gold maintenance costs to soak up some of the extra gold people have. Something like you current Government Tier increases District and unit costs. Whatever. But just something so gold has some real value beyond just standing in for production. Nerfing chopping would also help - and it doesn't even need to be nerfed much. Just have the increasing value of chopping top out around the Renaissance or Industrial eras.
 
Last edited:
Well in my experience I find that gold is more valuable than people say around here, but then again I play Phoenicia so lol
 
Buff Coastals and or Harbours just a little (but only a little).

Why? What could possibly be the reason for not wanting to buff them sufficiently? Why wouldn't you want them to compete with inland cities?
 

Why? What could possibly be the reason to not buff them sufficiently, so that they can compete with inland cities?

Because they don’t need a big buff to be buffed sufficiently.

Coastal Cities are largely fine as they are - they just need a way to recover from disasters and their gold needs to be more valuable (so, nerf the Commercial Hub and Market and make Gold more important, eg increasing maintenance costs).
 
That's demonstrably false.

People were hesitant to build them even back when they had two trade routes.

Coastal cities needs a proper damn upgrade.
 
Back
Top Bottom