Why coastal cities are better than inland cities

[brianagui92]

What if they buffed coastal cities so they can work up to 4 tiles from the city center, and the natural growth of tiles prioritises for shallow waters or deep water with sea resources. The biggest problem to me is that coastal cities have half the territory to work compared to inland cities. Historically coastal cities have been very powerful, this would give them on average the same amount of land than inland cities and sometimes you can get a Godly city like Constantinople.

 

[Scaramanga]

What if they buffed coastal cities so they can work up to 4 tiles from the city center, and the natural growth of tiles prioritises for shallow waters or deep water with sea resources. The biggest problem to me is that coastal cities have half the territory to work compared to inland cities. Historically coastal cities have been very powerful, this would give them on average the same amount of land than inland cities and sometimes you can get a Godly city like Constantinople.

Constantinople was powerful for other reasons than just being on the coast. It just happened to be very strategic given the geopolitics at the time. But the need to have a navy to siege such a city is an advantage that plays out in the game quite well.

 

[Caprikel]

I wrote some of these ideas to help buff Coastal cities earlier in the June Patch thread, but I think it would make sense to also discuss them
here in this coastal discussion thread.
First we have the issue with Hurricanes. Hurricanes overall are much more of a malus for Coastal cities, which isn't consistent with how other disasters usually are more beneficial overall in the tile yields they provide. With Hurricanes they only provide increased yields to land tiles, which isn't always helpful for a coastal city that needs those valuable land tiles for districts. To help with this, hurricanes should fertilize coastal tiles as well, so that those tiles can potentially compete with fertilized land tiles. Coastal tiles already have the huge disadvantage of only being able to be used for 2 districts, so they really should be buffed with that in mind.

One thing that has really bothered me about the Harbor district is that it allows a mostly inland city to still have the benefits of being able to build a navy without having the risks of being captured by naval units. One way to alleviate this problem without completely restricting the placement of the harbor to being adjacent to the city center would be to only allow the harbor to be placed in tiles where naval units can reach the city center from that tile. So in other words, if your city center is on the coast, you can still place the harbor district anywhere on the coast, but an inland city center wouldn't be able to. However, a city center that is inland could build a harbor if they built a canal that reaches the ocean, which would allow the placement of the harbor district anywhere on the coast. Also, in addition enemy naval units should be able to use your canal if you don't have a military unit on the tile. This way a city with access to naval units will still have the risk of being able to be captured by naval units.

A small change they could add to help coastal cities with science would be to add a +2 science bonus next to coral reefs for campus districts, which would create some incentive for a mountain-less nation to make a coastal city just for a +3 campus (By which could be relatively easily done with a campus next to a coral reef and in a triangle with the harbor and city center).

More sources of early-mid game housing in general would be very helpful as well, such as a well building would make sense since underground water isn't represented as a way to provide fresh water.

 

[kb27787]

All those factors get outweighed alone just by housing, and available chops. Not to mention land space for districts are scarce for coastal cities.

Not to mention that great admirals suck

 

[EgonSpengler]

Not to mention that great admirals suck

Right, if Great Admirals had abilities that applied outside the naval game, Harbors would have some additional utility. There are existing Great Admirals that already do: Zeng He (+1 Envoy in the Medieval Era), Grace Hopper (unlocks a random Information Era tech), and Ferdinand Magellan (gives a city +4 Loyalty) are all pretty good. But all of the Great Admirals that provide bonuses to your navy are useful in very,very few games. Horatio Nelson gets you a +50% Flanking bonus, but since naval battles are so rare, and so rarely consequential, it's just not that handy. The ones that just grant you Gold are nothing special, either, since the Harbors that earned the Great Admiral in the first place are generating way more Gold than the Admiral gives you.

Maybe some Admirals could provide bonuses that are even superior to regular Great People, but they have to actually do something first. For example, Horatio Nelson could provide a special Culture or Tourism upgrade to a city's Monument - basically, you get Trafalgar Square - but only after he defeats X naval units in battle.

 

[Kaan Boztepe]

civ3 had the great idea of outposts that could be used to mine strategic resources outside your borders. you needed a road and needed to defend it obviously and a city could take it away also but the idea was for me great and i think civ VI could use it in limited form for the sea/ocean tiles. a new sea builder unit could farm sea resources and provide a little housing from sea/ocean tiles anywhere on the map ( restrict its gains to the harbor it is built from ). afterall isnt this what is done in our world? high sea fishing and oilrigs etc? allow barbarians/pirates to capture it if unattended or taken away by cities if build within range and we have a new resource war on our hands

 

[racha]

Did OP mean to title the thread "Why Are Coastal Cities So Terribad?"?

 

[Victoria]

Did OP mean to title the thread "Why Are Coastal Cities So Terribad?"?

I really think they were arguing that they were OK. We all live and learn.... as long as we learn and we need an open mind for this game.

I wonder if gold got better with the removal of the harvest goddess

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

No city is really bad in civilization VI in the long term and more often that not the best thing is to pack as many cities as possible into an area.

The thing is not that should be asked is why or why not coastal cities are bad because the game is designed around quantity of cities and control over tiles, the big thing that should be asked is why sea tiles are particular poor compared to land tiles, you can not normaly improve them and their base production is pretty poor. Now if sea tiles had similar production as land tiles with improvements, controlling the sea tiles (which mean coastal cities) would be far more valuable than in the currrent situation.

 

[Ziad]

No city is really bad in civilization VI in the long term and more often that not the best thing is to pack as many cities as possible into an area.

The thing is not that should be asked is why or why not coastal cities are bad because the game is designed around quantity of cities and control over tiles, the big thing that should be asked is why sea tiles are particular poor compared to land tiles, you can not normaly improve them and their base production is pretty poor. Now if sea tiles had similar production as land tiles with improvements, controlling the sea tiles (which mean coastal cities) would be far more valuable than in the currrent situation.

Not true. You just don't have much choice in it. You can improve sea tiles with Lighthouses and Seaports, as well as the Fishery improvement. Sea tiles are basically farms with gold when used.

With all these upcoming production changes, I am however concerned that coastal cities will actually fall behind as a result. I wonder if coastal city food abundance will be addressed with the specialist buffs.

I really want to see the full patch notes lol

 

[kb27787]

Not true. You just don't have much choice in it. You can improve sea tiles with Lighthouses and Seaports, as well as the Fishery improvement. Sea tiles are basically farms with gold when used.

With all these upcoming production changes, I am however concerned that coastal cities will actually fall behind as a result. I wonder if coastal city food abundance will be addressed with the specialist buffs.

I really want to see the full patch notes lol

Farms give housing.... fisheries don't... I'll take the farms, thank you.
What is the use of having bunch of food/gold tiles if your city never grows past pop 6-7 until neighborhoods in practice (and that, is with one district slot already "wasted" with a harbor and production wasted with useless things like a seaport--which I reminds you gets unlocked late)? (or you need to waste SP slots on housing cards)

Sure you can make the argument that with seasteads coastal cities are godly, but then again, the game should've been over long before.

 

[Ziad]

Farms give housing.... fisheries don't... I'll take the farms, thank you.
What is the use of having bunch of food/gold tiles if your city never grows past pop 6-7 until neighborhoods in practice (and that, is with one district slot already "wasted" with a harbor and production wasted with useless things like a seaport--which I reminds you gets unlocked late)? (or you need to waste SP slots on housing cards)

Sure you can make the argument that with seasteads coastal cities are godly, but then again, the game should've been over long before.

Coastal cities generally have Harbors, and its buildings provide Housing,

And i don't get the 6-7 comment. You still have land tiles.

 

[Pietato]

Fisheries are a bad joke.

 

[kryat]

Coastal cities generally have Harbors, and its buildings provide Housing,

And i don't get the 6-7 comment. You still have land tiles.

Not to mention republic legacy and audience chamber. Housing isn’t that hard to come by.

 

[Victoria]

What is the use of having bunch of food/gold tiles if your city never grows past pop 6-7 until neighborhoods in practice

A dam has great housing, aqueduct river or lake? Government building, cards, fishing boats, and you can farm your land tiles. The main housing issue with coasts is a non freshwater, non capital coastal city is horrible at first because it just does not grow until you get a granary and that can be a while.

Fisheries are a bad joke.

Agreed, fisheries provide jobs and so should provide housing, is that not the logic behind housing? Anyone with a job will make their own house if need be, it is the poor without jobs that do not have housing. The housing concept I can write a huge post on (@cvb can attest to this) but fisheries does not fit the concept.
However to pump up your food if you can get enough housing as per the first part of my post so you can use mines on your land means you can find a piece of land with a lot of plains hills and make it into a monster production city. I have done this, it is quite specific and rare but there is a use to this jokey improvement.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Not true. You just don't have much choice in it. You can improve sea tiles with Lighthouses and Seaports, as well as the Fishery improvement. Sea tiles are basically farms with gold when used.

With all these upcoming production changes, I am however concerned that coastal cities will actually fall behind as a result. I wonder if coastal city food abundance will be addressed with the specialist buffs.

I really want to see the full patch notes lol

Fishery need governor promotion and is overall harder to spam compared to farm. They also fall behind in food production once farms hit feudalism and more so once replaceable parts is unlocked, even worse they give no housing. The need for a lighthouse mean the need of a harbor which is also a drawback.

Not to mention republic legacy and audience chamber. Housing isn’t that hard to come by.

Which mean giving away other stuff and audience chamber only work with governors which limit their use for a large empire similar to fisheries is also limited for larger empires.

Agreed, fisheries provide jobs and so should provide housing, is that not the logic behind housing? Anyone with a job will make their own house if need be, it is the poor without jobs that do not have housing. The housing concept I can write a huge post on (@cvb can attest to this) but fisheries does not fit the concept.
However to pump up your food if you can get enough housing as per the first part of my post so you can use mines on your land means you can find a piece of land with a lot of plains hills and make it into a monster production city. I have done this, it is quite specific and rare but there is a use to this jokey improvement.

Also they should get the feudalism and mechanized buffs farms get so they keep similar food production as farms. Also they should like farms be avaliable without the need for governor.

 

[cvb]

Anyone with a job will make their own house if need be, it is the poor without jobs that do not have housing. The housing concept I can write a huge post on (@cvb can attest to this) but fisheries does not fit the concept.

Yes. I can confirm; I simply repeat:
'''Wow, your scope almost slayed me ... literally. "[...] people can be pretty happy, it's all about attitude and human nature but the key point on the happiness side with housing is those people without housing tend not to create rebellions, it is the middle class" as Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels discussed in their correspondence and therefore expected the Germans never make a socialist revolution ...
... compared to this, I can do only tiny steps civ6-wise. My suggestions/posts on the forum always just covered things, which I can implement myself (in a tractable time frame). I just thought about to translate your special victory condition "win if you get 10 pop 30 cities" into the normal game - like going for a religion (without wanting religious victory) or having "rebellions" = small barbarian uprisings now and then ... just to spice the standard game a bit up.'''

The context of Forced random city growth above a critical size is:
"I still want cities to grow uncontrollably" & "It is a voluntary thing where you are controlling the food which controls the pop while in reality it is the other way around the population places demand on the food requirements."
'''To implement that population's demand I would let grow cities randomly (add 1 Pop point to the city out of thin air). And the player has to meet the food requirements. As well as corresponding housing requirements (1 surplus, to enable future city growth). As well as corresponding amenity requirements ...
I'm uncertain at which size this should begin. Small cities wants the player growing herself, so no intervention necessary here up to 7 or 10 Pop? What do you think? Forced random city growth above size [9?]
And then tranquility for, say at least [10?] turns followed by a period in which the city may grow or not. Up to, say [20?] turns. Then at the latest the next boost surely occurs. ... Rinse & repeat.
On average this would increase Pop every 15 turns by 1. Nearly 7 Pop in 100 turns. Is this too slow? You know: right now I have exactly zero own experience with civ6.
Would be extra 14 Pop (24 altogether) about 200 turns after the cities reached size 10. Is 24 Pop too low at maybe turn 300?
In this context I see also significant city maintenance costs (increasing per number of cities, beyond a threshold of maybe 6 or 8 cities) - regardless, whether founded or conquered cities - as additional incentive to trade for amenities.'''

I'm still uncertain at which size this should begin.
.

 

[kb27787]

A dam has great housing, aqueduct river or lake? Government building, cards, fishing boats, and you can farm your land tiles. The main housing issue with coasts is a non freshwater, non capital coastal city is horrible at first because it just does not grow until you get a granary and that can be a while.

Agreed, fisheries provide jobs and so should provide housing, is that not the logic behind housing? Anyone with a job will make their own house if need be, it is the poor without jobs that do not have housing. The housing concept I can write a huge post on (@cvb can attest to this) but fisheries does not fit the concept.
However to pump up your food if you can get enough housing as per the first part of my post so you can use mines on your land means you can find a piece of land with a lot of plains hills and make it into a monster production city. I have done this, it is quite specific and rare but there is a use to this jokey improvement.

By dam, aqueduct, river or lake... I assume you have one source of freshwater nearby (counting mountains), in which case, would it not be superior, to, you know... settle a few tiles inland and if you still want a harbor just put it on the 3rd ring? You get more land to chop and other things this way... The +1 housing from salt water really doesn't do much because a non-freshwater inland city has plenty of space for farms provided you have builder charges--I'd much rather settle a non-water inland city than a non-fresh coastal one.

So, assuming we are talking about locations with absolutely no fresh water source, but just some scattered resources in which some people love to settle. Housing is 3 + 2 from granary + 1-2 from improvements (and I'm being quite generous)... you are up at around 6-7 housing as I said. (and pop grows until size housing-1 after which it severely slows down). Sure a lighthouse give you +1 more and that's about it--at the cost of one district slot and a lot of production... at least you get a route with it (shipyards and seaports come much later where you could just tech to neighborhoods--as Kongo with UD I rarely make any coastal cities at all).

If we talk about early game then these cities absolutely suck because you need gold to buy useful tiles and those coastal tiles are pathetic yields early on. Having to first build a granary is a pain and delays your monument.

Passing over ancestral hall just to make some crap cities less crap is, simply not worth it in my opinion.

 

[Ziad]

By dam, aqueduct, river or lake... I assume you have one source of freshwater nearby (counting mountains), in which case, would it not be superior, to, you know... settle a few tiles inland and if you still want a harbor just put it on the 3rd ring? You get more land to chop and other things this way... The +1 housing from salt water really doesn't do much because a non-freshwater inland city has plenty of space for farms provided you have builder charges--I'd much rather settle a non-water inland city than a non-fresh coastal one.

So, assuming we are talking about locations with absolutely no fresh water source, but just some scattered resources in which some people love to settle. Housing is 3 + 2 from granary + 1-2 from improvements (and I'm being quite generous)... you are up at around 6-7 housing as I said. (and pop grows until size housing-1 after which it severely slows down). Sure a lighthouse give you +1 more and that's about it--at the cost of one district slot and a lot of production... at least you get a route with it (shipyards and seaports come much later where you could just tech to neighborhoods--as Kongo with UD I rarely make any coastal cities at all).

If we talk about early game then these cities absolutely suck because you need gold to buy useful tiles and those coastal tiles are pathetic yields early on. Having to first build a granary is a pain and delays your monument.

Passing over ancestral hall just to make some crap cities less crap is, simply not worth it in my opinion.

I have a strong feeling that whenever someone talks about coastal cities they just talk about any coastal city that has no good land tiles, no freshwater sources, no resources... placed in the middle of nowhere.

When one discusses inland cities, does one hold it to the same standard? What about an inland city with no hills and no features?

I mean... in general...you aren't settling a city in a bad spot in the early game... coastal or not. Your coastal cities will still have good land tiles, at least a couple of water resources, at least some freshwater source.... something... anything.... So your argument is purely hypothetical unless your map truly sucks... and the argument of "non-resource coastal tiles being useless" doesn't matter until you have completely exhausted your useful tiles.

 

[Kaan Boztepe]

I have a strong feeling that whenever someone talks about coastal cities they just talk about any coastal city that has no good land tiles, no freshwater sources, no resources... placed in the middle of nowhere.

When one discusses inland cities, does one hold it to the same standard? What about an inland city with no hills and no features?

I mean... in general...you aren't settling a city in a bad spot in the early game... coastal or not. Your coastal cities will still have good land tiles, at least a couple of water resources, at least some freshwater source.... something... anything.... So your argument is purely hypothetical unless your map truly sucks... and the argument of "non-resource coastal tiles being useless" doesn't matter until you have completely exhausted your useful tiles.

same standart as inland cities. Only a few good tiles ( that will be used for districts since there really are not a lot of choices for coastal cities.

 

[Ziad]

same standart as inland cities. Only a few good tiles ( that will be used for districts since there really are not a lot of choices for coastal cities.

How badly settled are your coastal cities to have such few land tiles?

If you consistently settle on promontories then you aren't doing it right.

 

[Caprikel]

In general, there's always some use for non-resource land tiles, even the ones with lousy yields since I can put a district or general tile improvement on it.
With non-resource coastal tiles, you only have 2 districts to work with, and only one mediocre tile improvement with the fishery until the late game.
Even Tundra tiles can become decent lumber mills now, and desert tiles can be amazing with nazca lines, while coastal tiles are only decent in the late game,
with the exception of Indonesia.