totalfantasy.blogg.se

But of you do get some amber or turtles you get rather excited because it is not that often you do and the rest suck a lot. The coastal water is 1 food 1 gold, just pointless. But if you play a lot of coastal games (I mean like 30+) then you you just start saying it sucks without even thinking about why, you just know you suffer in so many starts.įor a start half your territory is water and some (sometimes quite a lot) is ocean and unusable until seasteads. The main problem with coastal comparison is if you do the math on paper it can seem good or even great. Sorry if there are typos and its a bit long, am just unloading and going as am a bit busy Others, like Australia, are at least indifferent to the question.īut indeed, it is the clear minority of civilizations that can make productive use of the coast and this niche kind of contradicts the important role coastlines have played in the development of humankind.Īdditionally, it truly sucks that coastal disasters do not alot any benefits at all. Add in the guarantee to be the first to find the ominous island of citystates (if it exists) and you'll leave your competitors behind with ease.

And since I play mp alot, I'd argue the earlygame's course is decisive. As Maori, being able to cross the ocean from the beginning + increased production of forests + buffed fishing does away with the production malus of coastal cities at least in the earlygame. Especially the first two excel in that regard. They are clearly designed to make the most of coastal environments. Take Maori, Indonesia, Norway and England (?). Yet In a particular sense, when speaking out of the perspective of certain civilizations (and map-types), it is the other way around: I agree that in a general sense, inland cities have an upper hand compared to coastal cities.