Starting on the coast. Is this considered bad?

Artifex · July 15, 2002, 23:06

My settlers almost always start on a coast it seems. Unless I am playing a pangea.

Is this considered a mandatory restart? Due to corruption issues. I guess it might be ok for a colossus in your capital city. But overall capital and core cities on the coast seems hurtful.

Inverse Icarus · July 15, 2002, 23:16

i suppose you could see it as a downside, but i also end up with coastal cities (i like to play islands / small continents).

production is definately hurt (especially late game), food is a major downside until harbors, but trade is pretty good.

i usually end up with the colossus and great lighthouse.

vondrack · July 16, 2002, 01:38

Well, I do not consider starting on a coast bad... I even move my first settler a tile or two to reach it... I actually like coasts. I do not think you can generally say coasts are good or bad... I prefer locations that have access to sea (allows building naval units, Great Lighthouse, Colossus), but do not have THAT many sea/ocean squares in their radius.

I do not think corruption is relevant here - it will be the same irrespective of if you are on the coast or not.

Generally, my personal preference is to have my capital on the coast, even if the later cities are mostly inland. In my games (two or three continent geography), Great Lighthouse is usually of crucial importance, because it allows discovering the other continent(s), which usually helps me to catch up by trading contacts and techs.

The Pioneer · July 16, 2002, 01:57

I agree with Vondrack, I also like coastal cities ad I usually build a naval unit asap to explre the coastline of the continent I am on.

Deathwalker · July 16, 2002, 04:49

I also like costal cities in my games. Manly because I like building up a navy

sabrewolf · July 16, 2002, 07:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Deathwalker
I also like costal cities in my games. Manly because I like building up a navy

as a researcher, i must have a lot of coastal cities. my capital or second city has colossus and all the researching improvements and wonders. that alone guarantees to keep up in the tech race until flight (end of colossus) and further.

ofcourse production isn't that great. but that's what my hill-near cities are for

Solver · July 16, 2002, 08:29

Yeah, coastal cities are good. Generally, you're better off relocating your Palace later, but coastal cities give you good commerce, especially if you get the Colossus, and for the starting city to be on coast, it can provide even nicer commerce. Also, your starting city is highly likely to be one of your best - you'll be able to build quite a few Battleships there.

Iskandar Reza · July 16, 2002, 08:30

I like coastal cities as well, but I prefer to start in the middle. 70% of the cities surrounding the capital should be coastal (i play archipelagoes)

Zachriel · July 16, 2002, 08:30

Quote:

Originally posted by vondrack
I do not think corruption is relevant here - it will be the same irrespective of if you are on the coast or not.

Just to clarify Artifex's point. A capital palace in the center of a continent allows a ring of cities to be close by. A coastal capital palace generally only supports a half-ring of cities. Overall corruption will be higher for the same number of cities in the second case.

On the other hand, Artifex, those are the vagaries of history. Play the hand you were dealt.

Each position has its own challenges.

Solver · July 16, 2002, 08:34

On the other hand, I got lucky my last game by generally starting in the middle of my continent - the part of it that I turned out to control, and I liked it, really. Later I reinforced the northern part with a Forbidden Palace, and get quite a productive empire.

However, I play with overall lowered corruption - pretty slighlty.

sabrewolf · July 16, 2002, 08:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Zachriel

Just to clarify Artifex's point. A capital palace in the center of a continent allows a ring of cities to be close by. A coastal capital palace generally only supports a half-ring of cities. Overall corruption will be higher for the same number of cities in the second case.

On the other hand, Artifex, those are the vagaries of history. Play the hand you were dealt.

Each position has its own challenges.

true...

well, best is in that case a capital in the middle of the continent/island with access to the sea

something like this:

00000000000000
00001111110000
00111111111100
00111111111100
0011111C000000
00111111111100
00001111110000
00000000000000

0 = water
1 = land
C = perfect city

Iskandar Reza · July 16, 2002, 08:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Zachriel

Just to clarify Artifex's point. A capital palace in the center of a continent allows a ring of cities to be close by. A coastal capital palace generally only supports a half-ring of cities. Overall corruption will be higher for the same number of cities in the second case.

Exactly my point for wanting to start smack in the middle of the island. Otherwise I'd have to move the capital and early in the game that's pretty impossible.

Iskandar Reza · July 16, 2002, 08:37

Quote:

Originally posted by sabrewolf

true...

well, best is in that case a capital in the middle of the continent/island with access to the sea

something like this:

00000000000000
00001111110000
00111111111100
00111111111100
0011111C000000
00111111111100
00001111110000
00000000000000

0 = water
1 = land
C = perfect city

That only happened to me once. Best game I played. I fondly remember it...

Solver · July 16, 2002, 08:38

Firaxis has also made moving Palace so tough...

dunk · July 16, 2002, 08:39

I hate being one tile away from the ocean. It's so annoying to see that.

Sometimes I put a city one tile inland since 8 of the surrounding tiles are cows.

Andemagne · July 16, 2002, 10:37

no I don't think its bad to start on the coast. in allmost any game you need to build coastal cities, why not start it in the beginning. build more cities inland to get high production to build those wonders.

Iskandar Reza · July 16, 2002, 11:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Andemagne
no I don't think its bad to start on the coast. in allmost any game you need to build coastal cities, why not start it in the beginning. build more cities inland to get high production to build those wonders.

You're missing the point. In the beginning you need a lot of production. And food, too. Coastal cities tend to not produce much of both in the beginning. Now, starting next to a flood plain with wheat... that's heaven.

phunny_pharmer · July 17, 2002, 11:46

Quote:

Now, starting next to a flood plain with wheat... that's heaven.

Or starting next two flood plains with wheat, one cow, and a pheasant- that's when you kick yourself for having quick-started at monarch.

And then kick the AI, of course!

steven8r · July 17, 2002, 11:49

Quote:

Originally posted by phunny_pharmer Now, starting next to a flood plain with wheat... that's heaven.

That's great for growth, but not so good for production. You have to wait for the city to grow enough to stop using the Flood Plain and start using 'shield' tiles. However, w/ super abundant food, this usually happens fairly quickly.

jshelr · July 17, 2002, 11:57

I'd say that the micro issues discussed here miss a geopolitical issue. When you start on the sea, at least you know that the AI is not going to be coming at you from all directions. Having to defend in only one direction is a major, major strategic advantage. For one thing, you can often keep your territory relatively secret. You can repair the micro issues later with a palace jump and you can overcome small productivity issues at the start when you don't need that many productive tiles anyway. Starting near the ocean is a good thing! Anyone want to buy my beach house?

Velociryx · July 17, 2002, 12:56

Yes and no. Mostly, it depends on how the game begins to shake out.

In the earliest part of the game, it doesn't really matter. You probably won't be working the ocean tiles anyway early on, and therefore won't see any real benefit to it. It has been rightly stated, however, that you will not be able to have as many non-or-minimally corrupted cities with a coastal start (two remedies here...neither of them are very attractive - either burn a GL to move the palace, or resign yourself to spending 200 odd turns to moving the palace the slow way).

So...if you start off coastally (or worse, on a peninsula), then you are almost forcing yourself into a position of early conflict (especially with the peninsular start). After all, there ARE no peaceful ways of generating GL's, and it'd take forever and a few years to move your palace the old fashioned way....better by far then, to use a GL, which means....war.

A more inland start will lead to a better placement for your palace initially (tho as the game progresses, you may still find the need to move it....depends on who you conquer and where they are, mostly), but you have the possibility for a more peaceful expansion (even if you're surrounded, it would be possible to make a rapid strike to outright kill off one of your neighbors, and grow into their land as well as your own, securing your borders and simplifying your defense by doing so).

Either way, the initial placement of your palace is not set in stone....likely as not, it'll have to be moved at some point as you grow....

-=Vel=-

playshogi · July 17, 2002, 13:14

So, is disbanding the capital in order to automatically move it to the central location considered "cheating"?

Solver · July 17, 2002, 13:19

Vel, what about culture? The Palace accumulates lots of culture, and moving it hurts.

Arrian · July 17, 2002, 13:27

I don't like starting on the coast, for corruption reasons. I do, however, want a few cities in my 1st ring around the palace to be coastal... with at least one good enough for the Colossus.

-Arrian

N. Machiavelli · July 17, 2002, 13:55

As many have said, starting out on the coast can be a mixed blessing. It also highly depends on the type of map you're playing. I primarily play pangea maps now, wherein a fleet can be helpful, but is not neccessary in 90% of your wars. Corruption can also be an issue on such maps if your capital is on the coast, effectively halving it your potential unless you move your capital (which can sometime be a real pain in the arse).

However, on archepelago or smal contenents, such a starting location can be best. As stated, your capital is generally one of your largest and most productive cities and having it on the coast can allow you to have earlier and larger fleets. These fleets can be essential to controling the map, especially on higher levels. On such maps at higher diffuculties, I generally have more combat vessels than land combat units

. With this you can effectivly manipulate the AI amd strike with more potential force at foreign contenents.

To me, starting on the coast = naval power. On some maps that makes little difference, on others, it can be key.

jshelr · July 17, 2002, 14:35

You guys just regard AI civs as your next meal.

When you are playing with other humans, you will want your back to be clear.

Maybe being an English/Irish mutt, I'm genetically biased on this issue. Perhaps someone German, or, better yet, Polish, can defend the idea that life can be tough if you start out in the middle.

Iskandar Reza · July 17, 2002, 20:24

Quote:

Originally posted by steven8r

That's great for growth, but not so good for production. You have to wait for the city to grow enough to stop using the Flood Plain and start using 'shield' tiles. However, w/ super abundant food, this usually happens fairly quickly.

Even if there's no shield tiles around, if there's plenty of food, you can always opt for the whip.

Before you get sanitation, it's not like the excess food will make a difference. You won't go beyond size 12. So use that to your advantage.