Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by kryat, Jun 4, 2019.
I think it is worth to mention here once again the very unfortunate fact that Celestial Navigation tech exists at all. If Harbours were moved under Sailing, lighthouses and everything else - under Shipbuilding (Astrology probably would be made a requirement for Shipbuilding), and Celestial Navigation axed from the tech tree, hardly anybody would shed a tear. Harbours would be boosted just by their earlier and much easier to get to position in comparison to CH, and coastal cities would become that more attractive.
They only transport sharks.
Moderator Action: Please return this thread to civility or it will be closed. I know you are all anxious for patch notes and news of patch release, but please do not take it out on each other.
I don't think they should axe it, but it shouldn't be a leaf tech either.
Another small advantage for a coastal city, though more useful for newer players than experienced ones. Coastal cities are exceptionally good defensively, since they can’t be put under siege without ships. This effect is amplified by sticking a naval melee unit in the city to boost the city’s CS, and that boat can occupy the same tile as a ranged unit for defense. Of course, this would be different if the AI would use better offense strategy, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen the AI send an offensive naval force.
Something that keeps getting cast aside in this thread is the nuance of good settlement location. I brought this up early, but it keeps being cast as mental gymnastics to argue that the best coastal cities will be better than the best inland cities, not that all coastal cities are inherently better than all inland cities.
Here’s why it’s not mental gymnastics to be mostly talking about the subset of coastal cities settled near mountains on a river mouth.
When people have talked about inland cities in this thread, they often make some basic assumptions: nearby resources (ie, wheat), access to freshwater, access to hills, access to mountains, access to choppable features. If this subset is to be included for inland cities, advantageous conditions must also be applied to coastal cities, else we have a double-standard.
While it’s true that inland cities do often have these features, they also can have disadvantageous conditions as well: settling in desert, near too many mountains, featureless grasslands, featureless plains, large swaths of land with no freshwater, tundra, snow, etc.
Yeah, I will assume your spot has good tiles. But that means it probably has fewer "bad tiles" to place districts--you're probably going to have to put them somewhere where you'd rather not. If say 40% of your tiles are water you're going to start running out of room for "stuff," where in a landlocked city (unless you have an undue number of mountains) you have tons of tiles to choose from and won't have to worry about that. Those "featureless grasslands" and deserts and whatever will be just fine for a district or wonder where the ocean really isn't.
Even in SMAC:AC, where water-based bases were quite decent, land was always better. There were no thermal boreholes or monoliths in the water and naval colony pods were more expensive to build. Even when you can do great things with liquid, it's still liquid.
If you do as I do, you'll try to find good fresh water city locations first. Coastal, not coastal, doesn't really matter. I'm looking for good production, good food, with room to place districts. Then, as time progresses, I get less picky. Perhaps just fresh water will do, maybe a spot with good production but not much food, perhaps no fresh water, perhaps mainly desert, perhaps just coastal, perhaps just to grab those two niter patches.
If I expect these newer cities to be as powerful as my core cities, well, that's on me. Turn timer is a worse enemy than lack of fresh water. If I want these cities to be productive, no matter how good terrain is, I need to invest into them: gold, workers, primarily turns.
If we are overdoing one thing here, it's putting too much emphasis on city productivity. Coast not as good as land - well big surprise there. Salt water not as good as fresh water. No surprise there either.
Apart from core cities that will make up the brunt of productivity of my empire, I place new cities for four reasons:
a) place my victory district
b) grab resources
c) unlocking new trade routes
c) generating gold so I can win faster
Any city that can fulfill any of these criteria, possibly all four, is greenlit. Coastal, not coastal, fresh water, doesn't matter. If a coastal city has terrain to chop in a theatre square, and then work on a harbor for 50 turns - I'm happy. I'm far more interested if this city can get me some cash so I can rushbuy its Museum than how productive it can be. It's already too late turn-wise to ever return any other sort of investment.
And this is why I like harbors. Slap in a lighthouse and there's another trade route worth 30 gold and 8 production. Yes, you can get the same thing from a market. And you should if you prefer it or map (type) supports it. But a market doesn't unlock intercontinental trade routes, nor do citizens working farms generate gold.
If some here are to believed, all that matters is having a campus. Unless you’re on a 1 tile island, there’s room enough for that. I also don’t buy the “there’s not enough production” argument. Trade routes are the solution to inadequate production for districts, gold is the solution for buildings (or faith with Jesuit education).
With population requirements on districts your city is not going to grow fast enough if there's desert. At least coasts and lighthouses give food and another trade route to acquire more food and production. It's really about making a commitment to sea power. But yes inland cities with desert will suffer the same problems as coastal cities and will have to use "ships of the desert".
But there are tiles that probably aren't desert. IF there are, you can put a wonder or a district on that worthless desert square, saving your "good" tiles for other things. With lots of ocean tiles, you do not have the option (and I like coast cities mind you).
Yep, you will probably want to minimise water tiles same as desert, unless gobbling up those tiles gives a strategic advantage. But sometimes you just get rolled something.
I guess I just want big impressive port cities to be more of a big deal. I think if you could so something like make the harbor for a coastal city really good (maybe not cost a district slot like aqueducts) it might make them more choice
So many simple things that could be done and so far nothing. Does that indicate that they don't share the (common?) belief that coastal cities tend to be inferior to inland cities?
How about something as simple as putting a cap on the trade routes per city (maybe 2?). That would give coastal empires a trade advantage (that I don't think anyone can deny they should have). But as it is, ya, build one coastal city, run all of your routes out of it and you're good to go.
I guess it depends on the level of abstraction for what these events are (and likely they represent multiple scales of events.) As far as blizzards go, the best farmland in the US/world also happens to get hit with -40 blizzards every winter. It certainly isn't hurting crop yields. (The deep freeze/thaw they bring helps keep the soil loose.) Similarly, a single hurricane isn't so fun but contrast with monsoon seasons in many countries bringing life giving rain. They always told me fish bite more in heavy rainstorms too, but I only ever seemed to get soaked...
Game mechanically, they didn't want tundra, which is already awful terrain, to have no upside disasters while grass and plains, the best land types, got dust storms and floods, which have huge upsides. It's just exacerbating the imbalance. Coastal tiles already have to deal with sea level rise, getting pounded by hurricanes isn't so fun either (albeit realistic.) If we were being realistic, coast would be OP.
Not exactly... until quite late. One internal traderoute replaces what - one mine approximately? And if you concentrate them, it is for a couple of cities, what about others in the meanwhile? Trade routes for production is a little boost, nice help, but not the solution. I don't count Democracy Wisselbanken routes here, because that's for even later, when all is as good as decided.
again, gold from harbours and their traderoutes starts to pour in quite late. You must set up harbours, and lighthouses, and to make it all more "worth it" get Naval Infrastructure slotted in, which requires a leaf civic (seriously, why the naval side gets screwed with this leaf stuff now and again, when main CH stuff is on the major mainline? and they get CS on top?), and buy/build traders to run some international routes. Takes time to set up this. And if you run international, you don't get much production to make it a "solution" for production. You need to get to Mercantilism to get Triangular trade, to be able to get production and gold from internal routes.
As for faith... - that means that you stalled your start with religion and stalled yourself it even further with harbours stuff. In Civ 6 you can get away with this, sure, it is a very forgiving game.
I like coastal maps, I like sea exploration, I build harbours and play with ships, but I know that I tie a few bricks to my leg in doing this. I had one Deity game with England, where I went all out coastal and harbours first of everything else with the aim to buy all the things later. The result was that my neighbour Peter attacked me with Cossacks, while I still fielded swords. I lost my capital and another city. Civ V Russia would've killed me in that situation. But in Civ VI I ended up killing Peter. Eventually, after a couple more wars.
As long as districts can't be placed on water, coastal tiles will always feel deficient if the main qualifier is potential long-term value of non-resource tiles.
That's the general failure of the district system, and frankly in a future Civ game... if they do keep this system around, they should look into consolidating some districts like Harbors and Commercial Districts with different paths based on its placement.
Resources are everywhere on land, so it is very easy to settle near fresh water or where an aqueduct would work. Coastal cities...not so much.
Now if you could choose which city-states are in the game, coastal cities could keep up. Well, as long as you found them. Auckland, Cardiff and Nan Madol make a powerful combination.
Well, they're not literally everywhere, they're not on mountains. Oceans don't have resources either, I know. They're kind of the antithesis of mountains, being the lowest points of the map, and form natural boundaries like them but at least they can be crossed easier. Deserts are also lacklustre when it comes to resources. Since all rivers lead to the sea, it is theoretically very possible to find fresh water near the coast.
Water has no features to clear or go around and you're guaranteed at least some housing on the coast. In the long run an inland city with an aqueduct could be better though.
I don't play Deity, but I don't see how it's possible to not get Caravels by the time Russia has Cossacks. The Caravels could be used as better garrisons than swordsmen especially an armada using Santa Cruz. If the AI coastal settles, attack them with early Caravels, if not settle there yourself. Unless England has a continent much closer.
Separate names with a comma.