Why is Coastal so highly valued?

[svensken]

Why are coastal city sites so highly valued by a lot of people, even when there is no sea food? And why are people so afraid to settle one tile from the coast?

It seems like a lot of people gladly take a worse site over a better just because it is coastal. Why? I mean, intercontinental trade doesn't come into play until Astronomy, the need for extra health from the Harbor isn't needed until late in the game.

And even if there is sea food, there can still be reasons for not settling on the coast. You only lose one food for not being able to build Light House (assuming another city can build a work boat). If the total effect of settling one tile away from the coast is better than one food, then I settle one tile away. Yes, those coastal tiles will be pretty useless, but when the city is able to work all 20 tiles I am finished with the game anyway.

 

[oyzar]

I personally don't have a problem with settlign one tile off the coast.. Biggest reason for coastal is if i plan to get GLH, otherwise i don't care much. Later on it can also build a harbor, but that is not worth giving up a better spot for.

 

[Iranon]

Coast tiles are decent with a lighthouse, (generating commerce while being food-neutral), junk tiles without. Placing a city 1 square away from the coast wastes perfectly viable land.

For players who care more about using all available land effectively rather than pushing certain cities over the top, this is a definite no-no.

 

[D_almighty]

There is the trade aspect, +50% from harbours and +100% international from custom houses; there is the health aspect, +3 from a harbour for having all the seafood resources; there is the fact that most cities do not use all of their tiles until the very late game, so the coastal tiles can go unused and not effect your empire's growth negatively; there is the ability to build naval units from said city.

Other than that though, coastal cities are terrible.

 

[svensken]

There is the trade aspect, +50% from harbours and +100% international from custom houses; there is the health aspect, +3 from a harbour for having all the seafood resources;

Well, but as I said, those bonuses won't come into play until around Astronomy or later.

+150% trade isn't helping very much if the base is 1.

 

[Roxlimn]

The game isn't always settled by the time Astronomy comes along.

Similarly, some people will site locations for Bureaucracy well before that Civic is available.

 

[D_almighty]

Also, there are many civilizations that benefit greatly from a strong trading economy. Carthage and Portugal come to mind.

 

[JammerUno]

Coastal when your financial is 2F3C which is decent enough. You get earlier traderoutes, harbors, and if you're going for domination/conquest and your landmass isn't big enough for a win, you'll need a couple of decent coastal cities to get the ships to ferry troops across seas. And there's alot of seafood resources which are a shame to waste, and you're wasting them without a lighthouse.

 

[Gorrable]

I guess it depends on the kind of game you play. I normally go for space rather than domination or conquest. I don't enjoy going to war (unless it's Toku), I enjoy working out how to maximise the potential of my land and of conquered cities. This means long games, where you will work 20 tiles in many cities, and you will probably face (or have to mount - stupid cultural victory) an intercontinental invasion at some point, making coastal production cities important.

EDIT - I like how my reply completely contridicts Jammer's, which suggests coastal is more important for domination or conquest. Civ is a complicated game...

 

[futurehermit]

I personally am not a fan of coastal starts. However, I will try and avoid settling one away from the coast. If settling on the coast means I miss out on a good tile or 3 then I might squeeze in another city to work them. If the situation really, really calls for settling one away from the coast then I will, but I don't make a habit of it. I usually play for domination though and I usually play continents-style maps. That means I need a navy, which can be difficult, especially late game. So I need all the coastal cities I can to produce a navy.

 

[UWHabs]

Major problem is if you're one off the coast, then they're only 1F tiles, which are basically dead squares. Whereas even if you're coastal, they're at least food-neutral tiles. A city with 20 water squares, even without Moai, can still be a decent site.

 

[troytheface]

In brief- more unit options, building options, attack options, exploritory options and resource options. Which culiminate to adding more gameplay options which includes first build orders- ie. a boat first build allows the city to grow and gives an instant resource.

 

[Gliese 581]

I'm all for settling cities that are good in the early game and midgame but not optimal in the late game, games are not usually decided in the late game in my experience.

 

[Bleys]

I generally like coastal tiles, especially food, in the early game. I will take 2 clams over 2 non-irrigated corn all day. One provides 6 commerce, the other none. Coastal cities can hold their own for a long time, and even late game are not worthless.

Of course, this is another "it depends" issues. In maps that have a ton of coast (island types, B&S, M&S, even some Fractal), land can be a premium, so lots of overlap can be a negative late game factor. If I can grab coastal sites without worry about overlap in-between, all the better. I am a big fan of those "free" Trade Routes.

One thing I have been paying more attention too is inland lakes. If I can get a coastal city with access to inland lake tiles, they become better than riverside farms with a Lighthouse. Even after Biology, a 3F2C tile can compete with a 4F1C tile.

The bottom line is that every single food source in your empire should have a city by it. Coastal, inland, riverside, even hill (livestock is on hills a fair bit).
If there are other non-food resources that you need a coastal city to access efficiently, then you need to decide if its worth it. One of the most important factors in that decision is "will my opponents settle this spot if I dont?". The AI is notorious for settling every nook and cranny they see as fast as they can. Its easy for them, they dont have the economic problems we associate with rapid expansion.

The problem with these tiles is that later in the game, 2F2C is very weak. Given access to 20 improvable inland tiles, and 15 with 5 coastal, the 20 inland tile city is going to be much stronger than the 15+5 ones. If there is one thing I have noticed as I started playing higher levels, its that you NEED to be strong post-biology, because it can get away from you pretty fast. The AIs tend to build huge stacks of units or run away with the tech race, and you need to be able to keep up.

Now, all that is in games where the GLH isnt a real factor in the equation.

But if you have a snakey empire with lots of coast and at least a couple islands to settle, then building the GLH and then making sure EVERY city possible in your empire is coastal is a very viable strategy that is actually playable at higher difficulties. With the GLH, a city on a 4-tile island with a couple seafood is already paying for itself the instant its settled at ~50% slider, even with all-internal TRs. That city will eventually build a Harbor and a CH, which are basically triple in value to the non-GLH versions.

 

[vicawoo]

I generally like coastal tiles, especially food, in the early game. I will take 2 clams over 2 non-irrigated corn all day. One provides 6 commerce, the other none. Coastal cities can hold their own for a long time, and even late game are not worthless.

Of course, this is another "it depends" issues. In maps that have a ton of coast (island types, B&S, M&S, even some Fractal), land can be a premium, so lots of overlap can be a negative late game factor. If I can grab coastal sites without worry about overlap in-between, all the better. I am a big fan of those "free" Trade Routes.

One thing I have been paying more attention too is inland lakes. If I can get a coastal city with access to inland lake tiles, they become better than riverside farms with a Lighthouse. Even after Biology, a 3F2C tile can compete with a 4F1C tile.

The bottom line is that every single food source in your empire should have a city by it. Coastal, inland, riverside, even hill (livestock is on hills a fair bit).
If there are other non-food resources that you need a coastal city to access efficiently, then you need to decide if its worth it. One of the most important factors in that decision is "will my opponents settle this spot if I dont?". The AI is notorious for settling every nook and cranny they see as fast as they can. Its easy for them, they dont have the economic problems we associate with rapid expansion.

The problem with these tiles is that later in the game, 2F2C is very weak. Given access to 20 improvable inland tiles, and 15 with 5 coastal, the 20 inland tile city is going to be much stronger than the 15+5 ones. If there is one thing I have noticed as I started playing higher levels, its that you NEED to be strong post-biology, because it can get away from you pretty fast. The AIs tend to build huge stacks of units or run away with the tech race, and you need to be able to keep up.

Now, all that is in games where the GLH isnt a real factor in the equation.

But if you have a snakey empire with lots of coast and at least a couple islands to settle, then building the GLH and then making sure EVERY city possible in your empire is coastal is a very viable strategy that is actually playable at higher difficulties. With the GLH, a city on a 4-tile island with a couple seafood is already paying for itself the instant its settled at ~50% slider, even with all-internal TRs. That city will eventually build a Harbor and a CH, which are basically triple in value to the non-GLH versions.

Which one provides 6 commerce?

 

[Bleys]

Oop, meant 4, my bad, my current game is with Vicky, and I forget that extra commerce on coastal tiles for FIN leaders.

 

[Monsterzuma]

I pretty much disregard the "no-1-tile-off-coast" rule entirely for the first 3-5 cities I build because I generally build these with the narrow short term game in mind. If building 1 off the coast means I need 1 less border pop during a crucial time like the early REX era, I don't let the rule distract me. After that stage, yeah, if you're going to build it anywhere without much short-term pressure, coastal is a bonus, so why not.

On the whole, I'm "biased" towards ignoring the no-1-off-coast rule. It's very much a playstyle thing.

 

[cabert]

I go for coastal if there is no overwhelming reason not to do so.
But if the only way to get a food resource and a gold mine in the fat cross is to settle 1 tile from the coast, then so be it.
The ability to build a ship is not to be disregarded. In some games, you will need ships, and if your only coastal cities are miserable fishing villages, it will be painful.

 

[nbcman]

The ability to build a ship is not to be disregarded. In some games, you will need ships, and if your only coastal cities are miserable fishing villages, it will be painful.

But if the fishing village has multiple seafood resources those cities are well suited for the whip to produce ships and other units/buildings.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

But if the fishing village has multiple seafood resources those cities are well suited for the whip to produce ships and other units/buildings.

The whip with 1-3 cities is no way to amass a navy in the modern era (or even renaissance). The cap will kill you eventually, and while the whip can be pretty efficient with biology, it's not magical. Every city you settle off the coast is one less that can potentially strengthen your navy. At some point you have enough, but it's still worth considering. Without the kremlin, the whip isn't going to outproduce SP workshops anyway.

I also tend to settle coastal, unless the only way to get good resource clusters is one off. A couple coast tiles isn't the end of the world - we settle cities with desert, non-irrigated tundra, or peaks in the BFC all the time if the other terrain makes it justifiable - 1 off coast is no different IMO.

Don't knock the trade routes. Foreign isn't hard to come by usually, and settling a domestic city on a 1 tile island (or islands with a couple, whatever). Harbors and intercontinental trade can take off pretty quickly in a lot of game.