[SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENT] Harbor trade routes are broken

mantis2007

Chieftain
Joined
Oct 5, 2007
Messages
91
Savegame attached, click Next Turn to confirm. Lyons is the city about to finish a harbor.

REPRO STEPS

1. Build a capital city on the coast.

2. Build a second city on the coast and construct a harbor in that city.

3. No trade route appears between the capital and the second city.

EXPECTED BEHAVIOR

3. The harbor creates a trade route between the capital and the second city.


Possible explanation: a harbor is required in both the capital and the second city. If that is the explanation, then the game's documentation needs to indicate the requirement for a harbor in the capital for all harbor trade routes.
 

Attachments

  • harbors are broken.Civ5Save
    770.4 KB · Views: 161
Thats how it worked for me. Not that I minded overly much since I was Rome.
 
also you can't connect one city to another with a harbour and use a road to connect to the capital. Doesn't work, you can only have trade routes over sea if your capital is a coastal city and has a harbour, which kinda sucks.
 
also you can't connect one city to another with a harbour and use a road to connect to the capital. Doesn't work, you can only have trade routes over sea if your capital is a coastal city and has a harbour, which kinda sucks.

I'm not sure that this is the case, in my last game I had a second continent and all of the cities were connected to the capital for trade routes, despite my capital being land-locked.

--K
 
The current theory is that Harbors work like this:

"Building a Harbor will connect a Trade Route to another city with a Harbor."

If this is true, then the in-game text is wrong.

I'll test using the game from the OP savegame. PLEASE WAIT

UPDATE:

Harbors are most definitely broken. From the savegame attached to the original post, follow these instructions to test:

1. Load the savegame.

2. Click on Orleans and Purchase a Harbor. Go on to the next turn.

3. Orleans and Lyons both have a Harbor. Orleans is connected to the Capital by road.

4. No trade route exists between the Capital and Lyons.

EXPECTED BEHAVIOR

4. A trade route is established.
 
In this particular case, it appears that the problem is that Lyon & Orleans are on different bodies of water. You haven't actually explored to provide a trade route! If you do that, it will work as you expect. I think that sea-based trade routes have the same rules as land-based ones, in that there must be a navigable route between the two cities (ie. doesn't pass through unexplored or hostile lands).

One other point: If you buy a harbor in Paris, the trade route icon doesn't appear until the turn after the harbor is built in Lyon.
 
I don't believe this is a bug at all, but a design choice. You get a large amount of gold for trade routes even after the gold costs for 2 harbors. In fact the gold cost for 2 harbors is equal to a trade route spanning 6 hexes.

Furthermore 2 harbors are needed to open a trade route. Take this for example. You have an inland capital. You build a coastal city and link it up to the capital. This creates a trade route between the two. Now build a city farther down the coast. Build a harbor in this third city. No trade route. Now build a harbor in the second city. Now they both have harbors to enable trade. I call this working as intended. If a harbor is necessary to facilitate trade, you would expect one needed for each city that is on the "route".
 
Furthermore 2 harbors are needed to open a trade route. ... I call this working as intended. If a harbor is necessary to facilitate trade, you would expect one needed for each city that is on the "route".

If this is true, then the Civlopedia and the game manual need to reflect this.
 
In this particular case, it appears that the problem is that Lyon & Orleans are on different bodies of water. You haven't actually explored to provide a trade route!

This may be the case here, and would support the idea that harbor-harbor-road-capital is the designers' intent for trade routes involving capitals without a harbor.

Again, the text describing the harbor and describing water-based trade routes in the Civlopedia, the manual, and the harbor's capsule description in the UI are all very poorly written if this is the intent. The current text clearly states that building a harbor in any city gives a trade route to the capital, with no further requirements indicated.
 
Again, the text describing the harbor and describing water-based trade routes in the Civlopedia, the manual, and the harbor's capsule description in the UI are all very poorly written if this is the intent. The current text clearly states that building a harbor in any city gives a trade route to the capital, with no further requirements indicated.

OK - I'll note it as a suggested improvement.
 
Just would like to add my experience on this topic. I built a Harbor in my coastal Capital on turn 380.. Gave me 9 popups with trade routes established. Both my own and recently annexed cities.
 
OK - I'll note it as a suggested improvement.

I just wanted to suggest that it might do well to have a separate category for documentation issues. A "suggested improvement" could then be things like having units with multi-turn movement orders showing their path; a "documentation" issue would be things like the harbor info in civilopedia being incorrect, the SP screen, civilopedia, etc showing trading posts as getting +2 beakers rather than +1, etc. Just a thought in case it helps, obviously you should stick with what's working if it is. :) (And let me say that I really appreciate the work you're doing here, and I feel bad every time I forget to upload a save. ;))
 
On a somewhat related note, I was playing on an archipelago map, connected my capital and another city (on the same island) with harbors and it did not provide a trade route. I think this may possibly be because I haven't bothered to research the wheel yet.

EDIT: I just researched the wheel and the trade route symbol popped up in the second city.
 
Hello guys,
See below please :
why trade roads don't exist between Munich and Delhi or Dortmund ?
Berlin, Francfort, Dortmund and Essen have built a harbor and the roads between Munich/Dortmund/Essen belong to my land.
Thanks for your reply ! ;)
 

Attachments

  • Civ5Screen0003.jpg
    Civ5Screen0003.jpg
    227.4 KB · Views: 536
Try playing through 20 or so more turns and see if they appear. On my marathon length game I was having this same issue, and after checking these forums, I decided to go destroy my road connecting to the capital. It had already been more than 10 turns since I built a harbor in my coastal city and my capital. Before my worker could reach my capital my trade routes suddenly appeared. It seems there is a time delay in establishing the trade routes. This is possibly related to either game speed or distance from the capital.
 
Hello guys,
See below please :
why trade roads don't exist between Munich and Delhi or Dortmund ?
Berlin, Francfort, Dortmund and Essen have built a harbor and the roads between Munich/Dortmund/Essen belong to my land.
Thanks for your reply ! ;)

This might just be a case of redundant trade paths not being shown. If you go to your trade routes summary, are all those cities listed? As best I can tell, everything is working A-OK in that pic. The fact it doesn't show redundant land-based routes is nothing to worry about.
 
I found the problem.

The Harbor will only connect if one has been built in the capital FIRST, which clearly is a bug. I sold the harbor in second city and rebuilt it after the one in the capital was finished.

[EDIT]
Nevermind that... I was not able to reproduce with a fresh game, nor the game I was actually playing.
I think it's just very confusing because the trade route is created on the next turn.
 
Harbour railroad trade routes take longer to update than land ones:
1. Research railroad.
2. Build a harbour in all your coastal cities except your capital.
3. Build a harbour in your capital.
The cities will receive railroad links one per turn until they all have it. Expected behaviour is that they all get it simultaneously.
 
Top Bottom