Why coastal cities are better than inland cities

[Bosque]

I mean, obviously coastal cities also usually have lots of land tiles. Only a weirdo would settle a 1-tile island in this game since that would only give you space for a single district.

With God of the Seas pantheon, suzerainty of Auckland, 4 to 6 ocean resources, and Liang's aquaculture, I have actually made some very strong one-tile island cities. Eventually you can build a Waterpak along with your Harbor.

 

[kb27787]

Either I have good principles or you think the principle fancies me but without clarification I am not sure which you mean.

I'm sure he meant Principal...

 

[Victoria]

I'm sure he meant Principal...

‘Twas just my eye spinning way of asking for clarification.

 

[Gloompy]

‘Twas just my eye spinning way of asking for clarification.

YOU BETTER BE A GIRL!!!!!!!!!11

 

[Archon_Wing]

Well, that's ironic. I just got my fastest cultural victory (Emperor, t174) on the map most suited to the coast, ever. Opposition was weak though. And yes, we're using the meme Ancestral Hall to overcome housing issues and I had by and large settled quickly enough so AHall was not important. think this is as favorable as it gets as it contains lots of space to take behind you, Nan Madol, and some hills. All land routes to attack me were through narrow mountain passes. Very little rivers for hubs, favoring harbors. So basically this is as good as it gets. Most of the inland spots suck though thanks to chopping still grew faster than the coastal cities, but hey who cares about those details. But.... it had the help of Goddess of the Harvest thanks to a lucky early relic which will be RIP soon.

Seed:

-1959052955

-1959052956

I also uploaded saves, but the problem is the new CQUI apparently attaches itself to the save which means it won't work when the new patch comes out. Yeesh. I also think it won't work with CQUI either. So we need to deal with that ugly city display (good for functionality, terrible for screenshots)

Capital

Spoiler :

So does that mean settling on the coast was good here? Why yes. I could boost shipbuilding and swim over to attack Dido, and used the infamous ship garrison trick. So the nature of naval domination did help, especially since Dido had attacked with Biremes. So being coastal here had its benefits as well as shifting my strategy. My city placement is awesome mind you.

Does that mean all those awesome fisheries and harbors helped? Well, no. I didn't even get Liang until later on, and certainly would not bother with wasting yet another governor promotion to get the other things. The harbor was the 5th district I built (I built an IZ over it.... though that is its own can of worms), because as we discussed before good coastal cities don't have that many water tiles.... so harbors don't make sense. Should I build harbors to miss out on these? Surely you jest:

Spoiler :

Of course, most of the places didn't have good commercial hubs either. But even in these cases, can you really say I needed to build these harbors? I mean, it's a nice harbor, but maybe I should have chopped out another district?

Even a city like this which begs for a harbor, I still didn't do it, in favor of more practical districts And yea the campus is badly placed; sue me.

Spoiler :

And this city has a harbor and is one of my biggest cities; but why the growth? Work grassland tiles?

Spoiler :

A lot of this-- don't get me wrong-- does have to do heavily with chop = everything so that individual tile yields don't matter as much. This is what I mean by clear cutting your victory districts and whatever other stuff is really in the city's initial, short term development. This is why what most of the coast offers just falls behind in priority with everything else.

That being said, harbors aren't bad, of course and this happens to a degree with hubs too; gold is just not a victory condition so it's not needed to spam them everyone. Great Admirals can help but you do need at least quadriemes for those.

And of course look at these inland cities. They're not as populous, but the district yields (especially campus are higher thanks to the terrain features-- which kind of give you what you need to actually win and are far easy to manage (ie, I didn't manage them at all)

Spoiler :

So yes, there are situations where coastal cities can be better; but it's far more situational that it appears and it is definitely not many of the reasons that are commonly stated. Don't think you're actually doing anything by rushing a harbor.

Also, the hall of fame says I won on t173; I dunno what's with that.

 

[kb27787]

Kongo? Sure, if there's a civ that can afford to go coastal, then they are the one (thanks to UDs)
Still... you'd be better of playing on deity on lower difficulties it's much harder to get those relics up due to the absence of AI apostles. That fur opener though... you could've just gone ToA early and never have to worry about housing.

Ever notice how in such circumstance the "coastal" city has minimal water tiles? There are cliffs and then just a small little bay enough to make it "coastal". When people say coast is crap most of the time they get horrible starts like where you've placed Mbanza Mpangu...

 

[Victoria]

Also, the hall of fame says I won on t173; I dunno what's with that.

If you loaded T173 you will see your culture in fact exceeded that turn, or at the end of it.

 

[Ziad]

Kongo? Sure, if there's a civ that can afford to go coastal, then they are the one (thanks to UDs)

uh...

 

[DanQuayle]

If you loaded T173 you will see your culture in fact exceeded that turn, or at the end of it.

It does that for all victory type AFAIK, including RV and DomV which are won during the last turn.
May be related to the fact the game starts at T1 instead of T0.

 

[Victoria]

It does that for all victory type AFAIK, including RV and DomV which are won during the last turn.
May be related to the fact the game starts at T1 instead of T0.

While lots of things are messed up, especially with GUI updates I think it’s just getting in your head that you do your moves and then at the end of the turn (at next turn) it processes what was not needed during the turn and included in this end of turn processing is victory assessment which shows up at the start of the next turn.
They should really make it clear in a GOTM.
Are you sure Dom is EOT? I thought It was at city accept which needs to process then for a variety of reasons but could be wrong. Normally I just Dom till I am sated and do not like the cheap victory screens, especially the Dom one looks bad.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Ever notice how in such circumstance the "coastal" city has minimal water tiles? There are cliffs and then just a small little bay enough to make it "coastal". When people say coast is crap most of the time they get horrible starts like where you've placed Mbanza Mpangu...

lol that's kind of the whole point of the post. Is why I said

because as we discussed before good coastal cities don't have that many water tiles.... so harbors don't make sense. Should I build harbors to miss out on these? Surely you jest:

That is, even in these cities, a commercial hub, if placable, is still a better choice.

 

[DanQuayle]

While lots of things are messed up, especially with GUI updates I think it’s just getting in your head that you do your moves and then at the end of the turn (at next turn) it processes what was not needed during the turn and included in this end of turn processing is victory assessment which shows up at the start of the next turn.
They should really make it clear in a GOTM.
Are you sure Dom is EOT? I thought It was at city accept which needs to process then for a variety of reasons but could be wrong. Normally I just Dom till I am sated and do not like the cheap victory screens, especially the Dom one looks bad.

RV and DomV are won during the turn (aka in the 'middle' of the turn) when the last city is converted/conquered.
CV and SV are won at the end of the turn. (Although, the CV win condition is technically satisfied at the beginning or during the turn, the victory screen shows up at the end of the turn).
However, all victory types will show up as "victory turn-1" in the hall of fame. (So, the issue is not related to the fact the game is won during the turn or at the end of the turn / the victory type win)
But, the hall of fame says "xxx turns" not "Txxx win" which I think should logically be interpreted as full turns played. Since the game starts at T1, a T174 CV, for example, has "173 turns" played.

PS
Further clarification through examples
DomV: conquer last capital during turn 150 and victory screen shows up mid-turn: T150 DomV, 149 turns in hof
RV: convert last city during turn 150 and victory screen shows up mid-turn: T150 RV, 149 turns in hof
SV: Exoplanet Expedition has traveled 45 / 50 light years at the beginning of turn 149 and is travelling at 5 light years per turn; the victory screen shows up at the end of the turn: T150SV, 149 turns in hof
CV: get 100/100 visiting tourists at the beginning of or during (through rock bands) turn 150 and victory screen shows up at the end of the turn: T150CV, 149 turns in hof

 

[Archon_Wing]

I find the victory screen for culture gets really weird if you use Rock Bands. You still need to hit end turns regardless

Also there is the case where you annihilate a culture with the most tourists and thus win immediately.

 

[Victoria]

RV and DomV are won during the turn

Tx, yeah I misread your original and I learnt of a misconception I had.

 

[acluewithout]

Well, that's ironic. I just got my fastest cultural victory (Emperor, t174) on the map most suited to the coast, ever. Opposition was weak though. And yes, we're using the meme Ancestral Hall to overcome housing issues and I had by and large settled quickly enough so AHall was not important. think this is as favorable as it gets as it contains lots of space to take behind you, Nan Madol, and some hills. All land routes to attack me were through narrow mountain passes. Very little rivers for hubs, favoring harbors. So basically this is as good as it gets. Most of the inland spots suck though thanks to chopping still grew faster than the coastal cities, but hey who cares about those details. But.... it had the help of Goddess of the Harvest thanks to a lucky early relic which will be RIP soon.

Seed:

-1959052955

-1959052956

I also uploaded saves, but the problem is the new CQUI apparently attaches itself to the save which means it won't work when the new patch comes out. Yeesh. I also think it won't work with CQUI either. So we need to deal with that ugly city display (good for functionality, terrible for screenshots)

Capital

Spoiler :

So does that mean settling on the coast was good here? Why yes. I could boost shipbuilding and swim over to attack Dido, and used the infamous ship garrison trick. So the nature of naval domination did help, especially since Dido had attacked with Biremes. So being coastal here had its benefits as well as shifting my strategy. My city placement is awesome mind you.

Does that mean all those awesome fisheries and harbors helped? Well, no. I didn't even get Liang until later on, and certainly would not bother with wasting yet another governor promotion to get the other things. The harbor was the 5th district I built (I built an IZ over it.... though that is its own can of worms), because as we discussed before good coastal cities don't have that many water tiles.... so harbors don't make sense. Should I build harbors to miss out on these? Surely you jest:

Spoiler :

Of course, most of the places didn't have good commercial hubs either. But even in these cases, can you really say I needed to build these harbors? I mean, it's a nice harbor, but maybe I should have chopped out another district?

Even a city like this which begs for a harbor, I still didn't do it, in favor of more practical districts And yea the campus is badly placed; sue me.

Spoiler :

And this city has a harbor and is one of my biggest cities; but why the growth? Work grassland tiles?

Spoiler :

A lot of this-- don't get me wrong-- does have to do heavily with chop = everything so that individual tile yields don't matter as much. This is what I mean by clear cutting your victory districts and whatever other stuff is really in the city's initial, short term development. This is why what most of the coast offers just falls behind in priority with everything else.

That being said, harbors aren't bad, of course and this happens to a degree with hubs too; gold is just not a victory condition so it's not needed to spam them everyone. Great Admirals can help but you do need at least quadriemes for those.

And of course look at these inland cities. They're not as populous, but the district yields (especially campus are higher thanks to the terrain features-- which kind of give you what you need to actually win and are far easy to manage (ie, I didn't manage them at all)

Spoiler :

So yes, there are situations where coastal cities can be better; but it's far more situational that it appears and it is definitely not many of the reasons that are commonly stated. Don't think you're actually doing anything by rushing a harbor.

Also, the hall of fame says I won on t173; I dunno what's with that.

Thanks @Archon_Wing Really interesting post.

I still think this whole debate on Coastal v Land Cities just leads you back to the question - what should Coastal Cities do?

I think as it’s currently designed, Civ VI gives a few different answers.

First, the tech tree is set up so that, if you want Harbours and buildings and Naval generally, you only have two options. Option one: you can delay getting these ocean / Naval techs and get other stuff first. If you do that, you have the option of settling on the Coast to get a sort of “pseudo” harbour, letting you launch some ships (given Harbour tech is locked behind Holy Sites and down a leaf tech). Option two: you can beeline Harbour and Naval tech, but you’ll be behind in other techs if you do that. I think the Harbour Specialists and some sea resources giving science is meant to be a bit of a compensation for otherwise lagging in science.

Second, Coastal Cities, because they can have Harbours & Shipyards and Harbour / Commercial Hub triangles, have extra options for generating both Production and Gold, but without a river have inherently less housing. So, you sort of end up with two sorts of Coastal Cities. Those on rivers with good tiles (perhaps even mostly land tiles), that get all the advantages of a coastal city but none or little of the downsides; and those without fresh water that will be smaller / filler cities, that can potentially generate a lot of gold (to use across your empire), and maybe also a lot of hammers and science situationally but without lots of pop.

Third, given the points above, Coastal Cities are fundamentally not the games sort of “default” City. They are instead either situationally great cities or more likely filler cities you settle after your first wave of cities.

I don’t think overall any of that is bad design. The problems I see a more to deal with the wider game rather than coastal cities. The main problems I see are.

1. It’s okay Coastals don’t generally have lots of production. But it does create a problem if you’re trying to build Harbour Districts later in the game (because of District cost inflation and lack of chops) and makes it impossible for these cities to recover from disasters.

2. Gold just isn’t that valuable. Indeed, no productive yields are all that valuable (other then maybe faith) because chopping is so strong and maintenance costs are so Low.

3. Culture is the most important yield early, but it quickly becomes Science that is the most important yield. Coastal Cities are competitive on culture (monument, theatre square adjacency are the same between Coastals and land cities, although land cities can better leverage culture pantheons), but are categorically worse at science (you’re potentially researching ocean and Naval techs before your campus if you go early Naval / coast game, and coastal cities have less mountains for campus adjacencies).

4. Coastal Cities and Harbours are usually going to be something you pursue mid to late game, or if you pursue them early will hurt your early game. Currently, because of pacing, the game is all about those first few turns. So, something that doesn’t really come online to the late game is pointless, and something that nerfs your early game is suicide.

5. While Governors at good at buffing some specific types of Cities - eg Reyna, Moshka and Pingala are good a buffing tall Cities - the fact you can’t select Governors more than once is a real problem, because you just can’t buff enough of those situational cities to make more than one or two viable. For Coastal Cities, the only Governors that do anything significant are Reyna and Liang. They both make Coastal Cities very good, but you can only have one of each, and if you’ve promoted Liang you’ll probably want her in other Cities so then you’re down to just one Governor. So, you end up with one great Coastal City but the rest aren’t buffed at all.

Those are more fundamental issues, that aren’t going to get better because Coastal cities get some extra housing.

I actually really like how Coastal Cities are designed, particularly how you’re sort of encouraged to settle them a bit later unless you’re really committing to a early Naval game.

The real thing they need is better ways to build districts and recover from disasters, for gold to be more valuable (eg increase maintenance costs and have them ratchet up over time, and nerf Commercial Hubs and markets a little),and slow down science generally (the campus really needs to come a bit later or be harder to spam). If there were more Governors in the game, and more of them could buff Coastal Cities, or you could select some Governors more than once, that would also massively help the game.

I’m still interested to see if Coastals get any help in the next patch. He patch notes are meant to be 12 pages, surely there’s one bullet point for coastal cities?

But increasingly, I think Coastals will need to wait until a third expansion to get better, given that to really shine some fundamental stuff in the game probably needs to get improved - eg pacing, importance of gold, maybe empire management, flexibility of Governors.

 

[ezysquire]

Coastal cities lack purpose which is a drama double down since harbours are also lame as districts. The coastal tiles lack yields compared with the inland tiles and then navy is a pretty meaningless aspect of the game. A peaceful inland Civ can get to their VC faster without investing in a navy, especially since the ai never builds any meaningful fleet or more so launches D-day invasions.

I don't mind these downsides for settling city purposes though as it's history rpg and since people don't really live at sea it makes sense that inland city sites are preferred and sought by settlers to maximise land and resources which ultimately let you be the greatest faster. In rpg terms, not everyone lives on the coast, but people aren't floating about on rafts either. Yet and hopefully never.

The lack of land is also a humungo problem for district building since you have to build them on the few land tiles you do have available, meaning you end up with mostly only sea tiles to work.

If coastal cities had more purpose they could balance with their inland counterparts though. Precisely what that buff looks like is anyone's guess. I would vote for awesome sea trade routes. There could definitely be more done with trade routes in the game, flowing through to aviation. Ai aerial units are so broken they could be replaced too; bomber command-style spy play instead perhaps.

 

[kb27787]

uh...

Cheap housing at guilds (and to top all that off, a permanent 2 food and 4 gold to the city center for each mbanza) is certainly tons better than having all your crappy coastal cities stagnate until urbanization is what I meant.

 

[Ziad]

Cheap housing at guilds (and to top all that off, a permanent 2 food and 4 gold to the city center for each mbanza) is certainly tons better than having all your crappy coastal cities stagnate until urbanization is what I meant.

Do you spam farms on every tile or something? How do land tiles fare any better than a coastal city in this regard? Having 4 less farm tiles is offset by Harbor buildings alone... and you're building a Harbor.

And my confusion is at your claim that Kongo is the only civilization that can settle on coast without issue. The mere existence of Indonesia, Australia, Phoenicia etc makes your claim absurd.

Throughout this thread you've assumed

• land cities have fresh water while all coastal cities don't
• land cities have excellent resources, terrain, workable tiles, terrain for a lot of farms and mines while all coastal cities are one tile islands
• land cities all have perfectly placed optimal districts safe from all invaders everywhere

To the point where it's culminating to you claiming that the only civilization that can settle on coast is Kongo.. of all civs.

Coastal cities could use a buff now that production has been buffed for forest tiles, but JFC the arguments I've seen in this thread have often been sad and poorly thought out.

If I'd change anything it's from a small change like making Fishing boats receive another yield (production would be cool) up to something big like doubling all yields from trade routes across water.

 

[Ziad]

navy is a pretty meaningless aspect of the game. A peaceful inland Civ can get to their VC faster without investing in a navy, especially since the ai never builds any meaningful fleet or more so launches D-day invasions.
.

It's only meaningless if you play on Pangaea. Otherwise a strong navy can secure you a front to attack from and/or hold other civilizations hostage to your trade route plundering. The fact that the AI sucks at it only makes it easier.

Small Continents and Seven Seas will definitely make them shine.

Coastal cities lack purpose which is a drama double down since harbours are also lame as districts.

I like Harbors because they provide all yields (food, gold, science, production, and housing) which makes them really versatile for any city. However I do agree that Great Admirals/Generals are less desirable. They should make GG/GA have some civil benefits more often.

 

[kb27787]

Do you spam farms on every tile or something? How do land tiles fare any better than a coastal city in this regard? Having 4 less farm tiles is offset by Harbor buildings alone... and you're building a Harbor.

And my confusion is at your claim that Kongo is the only civilization that can settle on coast without issue. The mere existence of Indonesia, Australia, Phoenicia etc makes your claim absurd.

Throughout this thread you've assumed

• land cities have fresh water while all coastal cities don't
• land cities have excellent resources, terrain, workable tiles, terrain for a lot of farms and mines while all coastal cities are one tile islands
• land cities all have perfectly placed optimal districts safe from all invaders everywhere

To the point where it's culminating to you claiming that the only civilization that can settle on coast is Kongo.. of all civs.

Coastal cities could use a buff now that production has been buffed for forest tiles, but JFC the arguments I've seen in this thread have often been sad and poorly thought out.

If I'd change anything it's from a small change like making Fishing boats receive another yield (production would be cool) up to something big like doubling all yields from trade routes across water.

Well, if you read what I said carefully, I simply said, "if there's a civ that can afford to go coastal, it's Kongo"; I wasn't exactly claiming other civs cannot do so--I just felt they have one of the best tools to address the housing/growth problems that coastal cities face. Sure Aussie is OK (+3 housing) early (although I would argue that Aussie is a civ that actually benefits from having more land than coast--more land for super powerful outback station clusters) and Indonesia really, really requires you to have sea resources nearby (or else she is useless). Phoenicia... I'm sorry... you're probably a big fan given your avatar, but they are pretty much England tier. The only thing they have going for them is half price harbor with no housing or yield bonuses to coast whatsoever.

Even if land cities don't have freshwater, with enough investment you can still get housing through tile improvements, esp with GS (Cahokia mounds and monasteries come to mind--then there are stepwells and whatnot). Coastal cities get less tiles to do that on. Actually a lot of the UIs from CSs are so strong now such that inland cities receive an even further advantage over coastal ones from this expansion; you far from need to turn all the tiles to farms (which is why Mbanza is so good! It gives food to the city center as well as housing--allowing you to work those juicy moais or alcazars or giant heads, etc. even at the worse case you can work your amphitheatre or library for +2 culture or science). With CS walls now I feel most likely you can always find something to use a land tile for... and Kongo is just awesome in terms of maximizing such UI outputs with their tall, Mbanza&artifact food-bonus cities.

Yes, a harbor gives housing (eventually... once you get those late--and terribly expensive buildings in... but otherwise at earlier parts of the game at most it is a measly +1 housing from lighthouse), but then again takes up a district slot (worth 3 pop) so it just pays for itself more or less. Moreover its position on the tech tree is terrible to beeline early. As far as tier 2 buildings go I have no idea why universities are cheaper than shipyards for example.

One of the biggest issues (for me) with coastal cities is the amount of wasted culture/gold spent on acquiring useless water tiles; if they had adopted BNW's method of culture border growth (prioritizing resource tiles in 3rd ring over 2nd ring useless tiles, etc.) then I guess they would not suck as bad.