[R&F] Harbours

[acluewithout]

Well. While we’re all waiting for the next expansion, I thought I’d try to find something else to talk about...

So, I really like Harbours. I think many people underrate them. But they are often too hard to build early, particularly compared with the Commercial Hub.

Specifically:

• The tech is a pain to unlock. First, you need sailing. Eureka is settle a city on the coast. Sometimes that's easy, but sometimes it's hard because there's no good coastal locations so you're giving up a very valuable early settler for a sub-par City. Then you need Astrology. Not a hugely useful tech if you're not going for faith or religion, and the eureka (natural wonder) is pure rng. Then, you need to use two precious early builder charges to improve two sea resources. And even then, it's sometimes hard to find two sea resources to improve in the one city and or without buying tiles.

• Compare that to a Commercial Hub. First, Pottery which is a cheap tech and gives you the Granary (useful). Then writing, which is meet another Civ (basically guaranteed) and gives you a campus. Then, just create a trade route. That’s usually easy, because you can unlock that through the civics tree fairly early (although the eureka for foreign trade is rng).

• The harbour is also “expensive” to actually build. True, a harbour costs the same as other districts. But often, because it’s in coastal cities, you’ll be building it with less productive tiles. So, it can sometimes be a real pain getting one up and running compared to get a CH going in a landlocked city.

So, do people agree? Or are harbours not that hard to get? Or maybe they are hard to get, but that’s the right balance?

Personally, I think Harbours should maybe be a little more valuable rather than easier to get - to justify their cost. I’d like to see harbours keep giving you a trade route once you build a lighthouse, but maybe commercial hubs not give you a trade route until you build a bank. That would be a backdoor buff for harbours and coastal civs generally. It would also maybe fit with the trend for landlocked countries to be less wealthy than those with coasts.

Or maybe it’s right that Harbours basically come a bit later? I guess that makes coastal cities a little more valuable, as they let you get ships out before you get Harbours.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I also like Harbors. They are harder to get, but if you find a worthwhile spot for a coastal city to begin the whole Eureka train to get to them, then the Harbor you build there is likely to produce more gold off the bat than the Commercial Hub until you can surround the CH with several districts. Later, the Food and Production from Harbor buildings is more useful than just more Gold from Banks and Stock Markets. The bigger downside to me is that Great Admirals are less useful than Great Merchants.

 

[chazzycat]

Harbors are great especially when you have a few good spots for them (+4 or so) and can fully commit to “going naval”. The policy card to double the adjacency bonus for harbors is cheap culture-wise, making it a very attractive option. But it’s hard to justify the opportunity cost of a policy slot if it’s just one or two cities. Also, you really want the “god of the sea” pantheon, which again, is tough to justify if you’re not committed.

A few good harbors with double adjacency are going to start the gold rolling in. But it really pays off if you can manage a medieval golden age...then you’ll be rolling in science too. Tech quickly to shipyards and the game should be wide open.

 

[acluewithout]

I also like Harbors. They are harder to get, but if you find a worthwhile spot for a coastal city to begin the whole Eureka train to get to them, then the Harbor you build there is likely to produce more gold off the bat than the Commercial Hub until you can surround the CH with several districts. Later, the Food and Production from Harbor buildings is more useful than just more Gold from Banks and Stock Markets. The bigger downside to me is that Great Admirals are less useful than Great Merchants.

Harbors are great especially when you have a few good spots for them (+4 or so) and can fully commit to “going naval”. The policy card to double the adjacency bonus for harbors is cheap culture-wise, making it a very attractive option. But it’s hard to justify the opportunity cost of a policy slot if it’s just one or two cities. Also, you really want the “god of the sea” pantheon, which again, is tough to justify if you’re not committed.

A few good harbors with double adjacency are going to start the gold rolling in. But it really pays off if you can manage a medieval golden age...then you’ll be rolling in science too. Tech quickly to shipyards and the game should be wide open.

Yeah, sometimes I really like the hassle of getting them. It feels pretty good once you have a few up and running. I haven’t played around with the policy card and heartbeat of steam dedications much, and probably should. Harbours also feel very powerful if you can get Shipyards too.

I don’t think you need god of the sea to make Naval, coastal and or Harbours work, although I agree it helps. I used to take fish hammer pantheon a lot, and it’s certainly fun, but there are so many other pantheons that are also fun too particularly when they synergise with your Civ’s existing abilities.

 

[Sostratus]

It feels pretty good once you have a few up and running. I haven’t played around with the policy card and heartbeat of steam dedications much, and probably should. Harbours also feel very powerful if you can get Shipyards too.

Whenever I make harbors I'm almost always itching to sneak in a CH triangle for the gold- rivers especially so free market will trigger. While harbor doesn't need to mean coastal city, usually the +2 for city center means that. I think the Economic Union card that combines the CH and harbor adjacencies should actually come sooner. It can be hard to justify the card slot when you might only have a few and you also want to put in rationalism, or craftsmen, or free market there. I would also suggest some extra interplay - make the CH +2 bonus for adj to harbor a two way street. If we could get the IZ in on this action (maybe via a card or ability) that would be even sweeter.
I also think that lighthouses could use a return to their civ5 BNW power and also grant sea resources +1 production. Perhaps seaports should see their gold bonus swapped to production as well. Or at least the sea resource boost that Civ5 BNW had. In civ5, coastal cities had the major advantage of the boosted trade routes, and sea resource tiles being outstanding. Sea resources really aren't that good anymore, even for growth.

What I HATE is that even a great harbor spot in a new city takes eons to finish, and you cannot do anything but chop or be aztec to speed it up.
I really like how the shipyard scales with the district adjacency. I wish that mechanic was in other buildings too.

~~~~
IRL, built up harbor infrastructure is unbelievably OP: for starters, ships have always been extremely handy ways to move things en masse.


Taking an example from my homeland, even the 1 pop settlement of Two Harbors, Minnesota (3-4,000ish), thanks to its iron ore docks, moves material on the order of millions of tons per month. Scale: roughly speaking, this one port ships the equivalent tonnage of every single automobile made by volkswagen and ford. And all it does is move ore from iron mines out to IZs elsewhere- it's not some big city containerized shipyard.
~~~~

 

[myclan]

So harbour VS CH：
They both provide a TR when build the 1st tier building. Both provide convenient +2 adjacency bonus when built along a river/beside a City centre.

Advantage of Harbour:
More adjacency bonus when there are sea resource
Strengthen our navy at the same time.
Extra Housing
Increase water tile output

Disvantage of Harbour:
Great Admiral not as good as a great merchant sometimes
No city state bonus

So if you are aiming for gold, CH is better choice. If you are aiming for TR, harbour maybe better

 

[AmazonQueen]

I think harbours are mostly fine as they are.
The adjustment I'd make is to trade routes. Make routes that go by water have a longer range, maybe each water hex only counts as half a hex. Add a bonus to trade routes between different continents for all civs, not just Spain.
Moving the trade route for CH to banks would be too restrictive, too late in the game.

 

[Disgustipated]

Moving the trade route for CH to banks would be too restrictive

Agreed, especially since banks are so ridiculously expensive.

 

[kryat]

It’s also worth mentioning that the double adjacency card for harbors affects their shipyard production. With a harbor triangle and some sea resources, this can be a ton of production.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

It’s also worth mentioning that the double adjacency card for harbors affects their shipyard production. With a harbor triangle and some sea resources, this can be a ton of production.

This makes one city with a triangle and Reyna in it both a commercial and production powerhouse. It can be well worth seeking out at least one city location capable of making this triangle, as it can greatly speed up the mid- and late-game.

Ideally the Commercial Hub is adjacent to a river in addition to the Harbour being adjacent to two or more sea resources, and both being adjacent to each other and the City Core. However, even less than ideal set ups can still work very well. Notably, you don't need the City Core to be beside the river, as a population of 4 is sufficient to make the triangle work. Similarly, the available land terrain isn't as important for this city, which is going to get everything it needs from the Harbour and Commercial Hub districts and buildings, and ideally some Boats working the sea resources.

 

[shaglio]

Make routes that go by water have a longer range, maybe each water hex only counts as half a hex.

The problem with this is that sometimes you want to create a trade route to a city just for the road that gets built. Trade routes follow the optimum path to the city, so there would be a greater chance that the route would go by sea, defeating the desire to build the road.

Moving the trade route for CH to banks would be too restrictive, too late in the game.

I agree. That's why I would suggest leaving the CH TR at the Market building and change the Harbor TR back to the district itself.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Whenever I make harbors I'm almost always itching to sneak in a CH triangle for the gold- rivers especially so free market will trigger. While harbor doesn't need to mean coastal city, usually the +2 for city center means that. I think the Economic Union card that combines the CH and harbor adjacencies should actually come sooner. It can be hard to justify the card slot when you might only have a few and you also want to put in rationalism, or craftsmen, or free market there. I would also suggest some extra interplay - make the CH +2 bonus for adj to harbor a two way street. If we could get the IZ in on this action (maybe via a card or ability) that would be even sweeter.
I also think that lighthouses could use a return to their civ5 BNW power and also grant sea resources +1 production. Perhaps seaports should see their gold bonus swapped to production as well. Or at least the sea resource boost that Civ5 BNW had. In civ5, coastal cities had the major advantage of the boosted trade routes, and sea resource tiles being outstanding. Sea resources really aren't that good anymore, even for growth.

What I HATE is that even a great harbor spot in a new city takes eons to finish, and you cannot do anything but chop or be aztec to speed it up.
I really like how the shipyard scales with the district adjacency. I wish that mechanic was in other buildings too.

~~~~
IRL, built up harbor infrastructure is unbelievably OP: for starters, ships have always been extremely handy ways to move things en masse.


Taking an example from my homeland, even the 1 pop settlement of Two Harbors, Minnesota (3-4,000ish), thanks to its iron ore docks, moves material on the order of millions of tons per month. Scale: roughly speaking, this one port ships the equivalent tonnage of every single automobile made by volkswagen and ford. And all it does is move ore from iron mines out to IZs elsewhere- it's not some big city containerized shipyard.
~~~~

All good ideas, but I'd like to highlight your idea of somehow giving them adjacency with IZs. More money for harbors or more shields for IZ are first on my mind. It just makes sense.

 

[AmazonQueen]

The problem with this is that sometimes you want to create a trade route to a city just for the road that gets built. Trade routes follow the optimum path to the city, so there would be a greater chance that the route would go by sea, defeating the desire to build the road.

Good point. Pity because it should be possible to send things further by boat.

I agree. That's why I would suggest leaving the CH TR at the Market building and change the Harbor TR back to the district itself.

That would work ok I think.

 

[shaglio]

Good point. Pity because it should be possible to send things further by boat.

An easy solution would be for the devs to allow us to choose the option of sending by land or by sea (if both are within range) at the time we send the Trader. That way we could still maintain a little bit of control over creating roads, but then change to the more lucrative sea routes when we renew the route. It would also allow us to send the TR by the safest route possible, if we're beset by barbarians on land or on sea.

 

[Victoria]

Move harbors to ship building and make celestial navigation what is should be, an ocean traversing tech.

 

[chazzycat]

So if you are aiming for gold, CH is better choice. If you are aiming for TR, harbour maybe better

This is oversimplified IMO. Harbors can definitely provide more gold, depending on the terrain. They get better adjacency bonuses, and the policy card to double them comes much much earlier. Then for the late game, those large coastal cities with a seaport absolutely RAKE in the gold.

Basically if you start on the coast with good seafood resources in multiple spots, go for harbors. If you start inland with rivers instead then go for CH

What I HATE is that even a great harbor spot in a new city takes eons to finish, and you cannot do anything but chop or be aztec to speed it up.

This is why I think "God of the Sea" is a must. The harbor is strong but ramp-up time is a big problem. Those extra couple production from seafood make a HUGE difference for that.

 

[Softly]

It comes down to great merchants being better than great admirals and no city states for harbors.

 

[Sostratus]

I'd like to highlight your idea of somehow giving them adjacency with IZs. More money for harbors or more shields for IZ are first on my mind.

Harbors in Civ are really the Sea district, but because they share the TR capacity with CH everyone looks at that. It just seems that while almost any pair of districts could be argued for, an Industrial Zone benefits by getting raw materials access, and a Harbor has goods to sell. The entire US steel industry (once the greatest in the world) was built up around the great lakes chiefly because of access to harbors for iron ore. Why did the automobile industry center itself in the same place? You guessed it- harbor access to all that industry!

If it were up to me, I'd throw another +2 to harbors for the IZ, and maybe +1 to IZs for the harbor. +2 for IZs would actually be too strong IMO, and the harbor's shipyard will already benefit. I would much prefer the IZ side be a diplomatic policy card ("export markets") where factories in a city grant more production if there's also a harbor. (Maybe, a flat number, or scaling with the buildings in the harbor, or something.) These kinds of cards are an unexplored space that I think could be really fun.

CH are generally a way better gold option because your really need a lot of coastal plots being worked already with a seaport to come close to the native +15 CH buildings give, plus the CS bonuses that can easily dwarf that, plus CH has a building card to give an extra 50-100%. River triangle means by the time that seaport is running, free market can already get you +30 gold off the CH buildings. Plus, you're building CH in all your land cities, so it's more likely to justify a card slot than harbors if you have a stereotypical "took over half the continent" empire. It's funny- the easiest way to get a +4 or better CH is to just build a harbor triangle!

Edit: One clarification:
Just because I think they are subpar doesn't mean I don't build harbors. To the contrary. Harbor-CH-IZ all cities, all the time. I can't resist a nice adjacency.

 

[acluewithout]

Moving the trade route for CH to banks would be too restrictive, too late in the game.

Agreed, especially since banks are so ridiculously expensive.

I agree. That's why I would suggest leaving the CH TR at the Market building and change the Harbor TR back to the district itself.

So... that's a no.

Hmm. Maybe moving TRs back to Banks wouldn't work because of the costs or would be too restrictive overall. But I still think it might work with some other tweaks to balance things out - e.g. one or two extra trade routes in the civics tree to balance things out.

Harbors in Civ are really the Sea district, but because they share the TR capacity with CH everyone looks at that. It just seems that while almost any pair of districts could be argued for, an Industrial Zone benefits by getting raw materials access, and a Harbor has goods to sell. The entire US steel industry (once the greatest in the world) was built up around the great lakes chiefly because of access to harbors for iron ore. Why did the automobile industry center itself in the same place? You guessed it- harbor access to all that industry!

If it were up to me, I'd throw another +2 to harbors for the IZ, and maybe +1 to IZs for the harbor. +2 for IZs would actually be too strong IMO, and the harbor's shipyard will already benefit. I would much prefer the IZ side be a diplomatic policy card ("export markets") where factories in a city grant more production if there's also a harbor. (Maybe, a flat number, or scaling with the buildings in the harbor, or something.) These kinds of cards are an unexplored space that I think could be really fun.

CH are generally a way better gold option because your really need a lot of coastal plots being worked already with a seaport to come close to the native +15 CH buildings give, plus the CS bonuses that can easily dwarf that, plus CH has a building card to give an extra 50-100%. River triangle means by the time that seaport is running, free market can already get you +30 gold off the CH buildings. Plus, you're building CH in all your land cities, so it's more likely to justify a card slot than harbors if you have a stereotypical "took over half the continent" empire. It's funny- the easiest way to get a +4 or better CH is to just build a harbor triangle!

Edit: One clarification:
Just because I think they are subpar doesn't mean I don't build harbors. To the contrary. Harbor-CH-IZ all cities, all the time. I can't resist a nice adjacency.

Harbours giving +2 adjacency to IZs would be a good change. I don't think IZ should give a bonus to Harbours though, otherwise it would discourage people building harbours adjacent to city centres and make adjacencies way too easy.

Do Commercial Hubs give more gold than Harbours? Hmm.

Build a Harbour in a good spot and next to a coastal city and that's usually +3 or +4. A CH can really only get +2 without lots of other districts. Get some tier 1 buildings, and I think they're both basically equal (although you've had the extra gold from the harbour while you built your lighthouse).

And relatedly coastal cities potentially give more gold because sea improvements usually give gold (and the light house them gives you housing for more citizens to work those improvements and buffs the improvements with food).

So. I think Harbours maybe usually give more gold as your first district in a city and are a better investment if you're not going to keep developing that city beyond say tier 1 buildings.

But CHs give great merchants and maybe extra gold with City States (you know, for the 10 turns City States are in the game before they all get captured). And once you get to tier 2 and 3 buildings CHs really out preforming Harbours for gold. So longer term and if you're willing to build them up cities with CHs, those CHs maybe do get your more gold overall.

 

[Sostratus]

But CHs give great merchants and maybe extra gold with City States (you know, for the 10 turns City States are in the game before they all get captured). And once you get to tier 2 and 3 buildings CHs really out preforming Harbours for gold. So longer term and if you're willing to build them up cities with CHs, those CHs maybe do get your more gold overall

Great merchants are obviously a very powerful intangible, but setting those aside: Of course harbors can dish out a lot of gold. But, there's a huge bias in placement: we'll only build harbors if the case that they have good adjacency is met, which requires a coastal city site and resources that are favorable; a CH is much more competitive generically. Rarely does one drop a harbor in a non-coastal city for gold- a pure harbor gold economy just isn't reliable except maybe on island maps.
The math isn't very favourable even without CH adjacency or a stock exchange:
8 gold, +50% for 10 population, +8 more for every commercial CS.
Vs
+3 gold adj, +3 gold from lighthouse seaport innate, +2 per sea tile worked.
You're going to have to make aggressive assumptions about how many non sea resource tiles you'll be working and the likelihood of no commercial CS on the map you can sink 6 envoys into. Even one CS is doubling the output of market+bank combo.

But this is okay. It's okay if a harbor in a less than amazing spot under performs a CH, because harbors also give you food and production, which is clutch. And the entire idea of the triangle is that you can take advantage of them playing off each other.

The entire edge they may have is for a coastal civ in the early game, but even in the OP:

But they are often too hard to build early, particularly compared with the Commercial Hub.

it's not ideal.

Again, I'm not a harbor hater. I love harbors. It bugs me that they don't seem to have enough oompf, and the tech path is so unbelievably inconvenient. If i'm going for gold, I'll be building both in most coastal cities anyways.

Harbours giving +2 adjacency to IZs would be a good change. I don't think IZ should give a bonus to Harbours though, otherwise it would discourage people building harbours adjacent to city centres and make adjacencies way too easy.

I just think +2 is too strong as a built in thing for an IZ. Hansas are OP because they get +2 from CHs, and the dutch river bonus is seen as extremely strong and it's only +2 as well. You'd start trading harbor adjacency for IZ adjacency because gold<<production and you can't run all the cards all the time. Hence, I was think the harbors could get gold which would become shipyard production, without making them a footnote to IZ greatness. Remember: a harbor gets nothing but a minor bonus for being next to a CH. Looking to crank out gold? Seek out CH-Habor-River triangles. Looking to really focus on harbors? Seek out hilly coastline for Harbor-IZ triangle. Plop the CH anywhere since you'll still get the buildings, or maybe a river to capture the +2 anyways.

A harbor IZ city triangle under this regime would put out an astonishing 5 gold base (easy 10 production shipyard!,) but the IZ is only pulling in 1 by itself. Giving the bonus to IZs would be symmetrical to what a CH gets, but it wouldn't be good for harbors themselves.