Starting on the coast. Is this considered bad?

[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.

[Iskandar Reza]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Solver]

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

[Arrian]

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]

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]

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]

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.