seaports question

[slo]

So my Capital is in the middle of a land mass, with a river near it which leads to the ocean...I did not build seaports thinking that since my capital is inland they would not do anything..I think I did that wrong?
so....if your capital is land locked, will your seaports do anyting?
does a river make a difference?
thanks
slo

 

[toccoto]

If you are allowed to build one in a city, it has use.

 

[Rohili]

Seaports are marvellous if you have sea resources within your city's borders. Definitely build them if you can.

 

[Creepy Old Man]

You might be confusing seaports with harbours.

Seaports cause fish, whale, and pearl hexes, worked by the city with the seaport, to produce +2 hammers. The existence or non-existence of a seaport in one city has no influence on any other city.

Harbours link your trade routes. If there is a road running from your capital to city A, and city A has a harbour, and city B also has a harbour, then city B is connected to your capital (provided city A and B are on the same body of water). Harbour links count as railroad links once you have the technology.

The link from roads and/or harbours gives the connected city a trade rout, which is free money. After railroad, it also gives a production boost.

It doesn't matter if your capital has a harbour, as long as at least one city, which has a road to your capital, does have a harbour.

 

[DaveGold]

Seaports are marvellous if you have sea resources within your city's borders. Definitely build them if you can.

Check the maths on the seaport if you only have one sea resource.

 

[Rohili]

Check the maths on the seaport if you only have one sea resource.

I would say it is still worth it, unless you are in the very late game.

The seaport costs 140 and 2 maintenance. It grants 2 extra if you have only one sea resource.

Say you have 200 turns left in the game (standard speed has 500 turns). It takes 70 turns for you to break even on the initial 140 investment. So the extra you get is (200-70)*2 = 260.

In the meantime, you would have paid 400 in maintenance. So, you are getting 260/400 = 0.65 hammers/gold, which is very decent IMO (as a benchmark, building wealth gives you 0.25 hammers/gold).

(Btw, the seaport is still worth it even when you have only 100 turns left. The ratio would then be 0.3 hammers/gold)

 

[zuraffo]

If you are allowed to build one in a city, it has use.

I love your answer! You cut straight to the point.

 

[DaveGold]

The difficulty with the long term benefits of the seaport is that if you're going to build something like a market or university afterwards then in the 70 turns that you're breaking even for the initial hammer investment you're late building the market, late building the university, and down 140 maintenance. The 'lost opportunity' costs will mean that you miss out on progress elsewhere that could more than outweigh the final seaport bonus.

With only one resource you need to check the maths.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I would say it is still worth it, unless you are in the very late game.

The seaport costs 140 and 2 maintenance. It grants 2 extra if you have only one sea resource.

Say you have 200 turns left in the game (standard speed has 500 turns). It takes 70 turns for you to break even on the initial 140 investment. So the extra you get is (200-70)*2 = 260.

In the meantime, you would have paid 400 in maintenance. So, you are getting 260/400 = 0.65 hammers/gold, which is very decent IMO (as a benchmark, building wealth gives you 0.25 hammers/gold).

(Btw, the seaport is still worth it even when you have only 100 turns left. The ratio would then be 0.3 hammers/gold)

True, but one could argue that the hammers now beat hammers later in the game.

I still like seaports. I like the idea of buildings like that and the mint, and I hope to see changes to other buildings to give more value to the other resource tiles.

 

[PawelS]

The "investment return" calculations are not always applicable, because there may be situations where you have no other interesting things to produce at the moment, but you will need some extra production later, after getting a new tech or when preparing for a war.

 

[WickedSick37]

I would say it is still worth it, unless you are in the very late game.

The seaport costs 140 and 2 maintenance. It grants 2 extra if you have only one sea resource.

Say you have 200 turns left in the game (standard speed has 500 turns). It takes 70 turns for you to break even on the initial 140 investment. So the extra you get is (200-70)*2 = 260.

In the meantime, you would have paid 400 in maintenance. So, you are getting 260/400 = 0.65 hammers/gold, which is very decent IMO (as a benchmark, building wealth gives you 0.25 hammers/gold).

(Btw, the seaport is still worth it even when you have only 100 turns left. The ratio would then be 0.3 hammers/gold)

Wealth is 0.25 gold/hammers. Not hammers/gold. Compare it to buying a building or something instead ^^

 

[Rohili]

Wealth is 0.25 gold/hammers. Not hammers/gold. Compare it to buying a building or something instead ^^

Lol, you're right. My mistake. I'm not sure what are the values for buying buildings though - they would be affected by social policies and the Big Ben.

 

[Polish]

I usually build a Seaport with 1 resource--always build it with two. It is an excellent way to give your costal cities a little extra production capacity--in some cases it has been most of what they have because they were surrounded by grassland on the land side. While it is possible to buy buildings, I find that it is unusual for me to have the extra cash to buy very many each turn and in a large empire, it is better if the cities can be mostly self producing.

 

[WickedSick37]

Yeah. It's good for golden ages (sea resources doesn't get the +1 production bonus without seaport). The production you get are also affected by production modifiers (like the 50% railroad bonus) so I too would say it most often is worth to build it ^^