Sea Port Insanity

[yeknod]

By now you should know that the Carthaginians and Norse have sea ports with insane buffs for food and/or money. To a lessor extent the Phoenicians. Here is my issue: it is true that super ports in the ancient and modern world bring in a tremendous harvest of food and money from trade. But historically, Phoenicia had ONE Sidon; Carthage had ONE Cothon; Byzantium had ONE Port of Constantinople; Netherlands had ONE Amsterdam. For the life of me, I can't think of any Norse port of renown - they weren't traders, they were raiders. So, I say put the kibosh on this. Allow ONE superport for every City at the most. Now you can have a city with three, four, five superports. The buffs are rediculous +60 food.

[FoxFox]

Lots of comments about the historical details, but I have to agree with the main point OP is making: Cities are normally limited to a single port (per region) and it makes no sense to me that certain cultures get additional ports. I don't think OP is saying that an empire can only have 1 special harbour, but rather that a single CITY (region) should only have 1 harbour. Cities typically do not have several important harbour areas.

To me, it would be more realistic for these cultures to have superior ports, but not necessarily the ability to build more ports in a single region. There may be balancing issues then, so perhaps the unique ports need a stronger bonus. Or alternatively there CAN be additional harbour districts, but then there should be restriction that they must be placed next to each other so that they become essentially extra large ports, which make more sense.

[Professor Hardknocks]

Originally posted by FoxFox:

Lots of comments about the historical details, but I have to agree with the main point OP is making: Cities are normally limited to a single port (per region) and it makes no sense to me that certain cultures get additional ports. I don't think OP is saying that an empire can only have 1 special harbour, but rather that a single CITY (region) should only have 1 harbour. Cities typically do not have several important harbour areas.

To me, it would be more realistic for these cultures to have superior ports, but not necessarily the ability to build more ports in a single region. There may be balancing issues then, so perhaps the unique ports need a stronger bonus. Or alternatively there CAN be additional harbour districts, but then there should be restriction that they must be placed next to each other so that they become essentially extra large ports, which make more sense.

Then you have to ask if every land oriented EQ should also be limited to one per city. Why should we hate on coastal players so much? F- realism, we need a balanced game.

[Professor Hardknocks]

Maybe every district should have a "One per city" limit, which applies to all special buildings - that way everything can be nerfed.

[DavesBarbaricCookie]

Originally posted by FoxFox:

Lots of comments about the historical details, but I have to agree with the main point OP is making: Cities are normally limited to a single port (per region) and it makes no sense to me that certain cultures get additional ports. I don't think OP is saying that an empire can only have 1 special harbour, but rather that a single CITY (region) should only have 1 harbour. Cities typically do not have several important harbour areas.

To me, it would be more realistic for these cultures to have superior ports, but not necessarily the ability to build more ports in a single region. There may be balancing issues then, so perhaps the unique ports need a stronger bonus. Or alternatively there CAN be additional harbour districts, but then there should be restriction that they must be placed next to each other so that they become essentially extra large ports, which make more sense.

that is not true either. historically old harbour cities either expanded their old harbours massively which might as well count as a new harbour or build a new bigger one right out of the gates and used the older one for fishing etc, so I see no reason to not do that.

Now from a pure gaming and balance focused standpoint focusing on harbours specifically requires enough cost line to be worth it which means you are forsaking land more often then not as a balance point, and it should be a viable tactic to forsake land masses which could be turned into op land based cities to go for more niche harbour and coastal areas based playstyle. its called asymetrical balancing. Or, in another more blunt phrase: stuff that is different so that the game is not always the same shade of grey.

[Siger]

egypt->egypt->khmer->poles/khmer->austro-hungaria/germans->sweeden/turks

if youre playing other cultures than this your not winning hard enough,this ensure you have lots of industry and enough stability and influence to build continent spanning mega cities,the ports sure give lots of stuff but it just dose not scale like the barray/opernhouse the polish garrison is not that impressive actually but it gives a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ of stability and it scales with garrison upgrades and theyre more stability per district makes mega cities way way easier.
also remember that infrastructure is only important if it gives industry/food/stability everything else is irrelevant

ports have really bad scaling because you cant get adjecency bonuses for them so easy and most inland territories cant build them,the seemingly impressive out of the gate production is a lie a few normal districts with adjecency is far,far better.

Norsemen however are actually really good not because of the port but because you get first dibs on empty continent if you are not an era behinde

[Dorok]

I totally disagree that any culture should have its special building destroyed/replaced by next culture structure.

Yeah multi ports and what? That's the point of those cultures.

About Carthaginians for me their ports bring a quite big amount of factory not gold (gold and food too but quite less), and for Norse it's a big amount of food (and gold too but less).

The amount isn't chocking, there's one per territory and their placement restriction is a huge penalty. I have some standard factory districts well placed producing as much than Carthaginians ports, and standard food districts well placed producing not far as much than for Norse ports.

They don't seem OP but when you place them it's impressive because on start they already produce a lot, again this is compensating placements restrictions. It's not only less spot choices but also less territories.

[FoxFox]

Originally posted by Old School:

Then you have to ask if every land oriented EQ should also be limited to one per city. Why should we hate on coastal players so much? F- realism, we need a balanced game.

Well it would just be nice to have both realism and balance :)

Originally posted by ♪ Bardbarian/Dave:

that is not true either. historically old harbour cities either expanded their old harbours massively which might as well count as a new harbour or build a new bigger one right out of the gates and used the older one for fishing etc, so I see no reason to not do that.

True, that's why I mentioned the alternative of only allowing additional harbour districts to be placed next to existing ones. Harbour tend to be in a particular spots for practical reasons, either around a bay that acts as a natural harbour and/or at the mouth of a navigable river. So while expanding existing harbours by adding districts makes sense historically, but building a different harbour in an entirely new spot not so much.

[knighttemplar1960]

Originally posted by FoxFox:

True, that's why I mentioned the alternative of only allowing additional harbour districts to be placed next to existing ones. Harbour tend to be in a particular spots for practical reasons, either around a bay that acts as a natural harbour and/or at the mouth of a navigable river. So while expanding existing harbours by adding districts makes sense historically, but building a different harbour in an entirely new spot not so much.

It all depends on how large a territory actually is. If you look at the coast of California you have 11 major ports spanning the 1,000 miles of coast between the North Coast and San Diego County. That doesn't include marinas, private/public boat slips, ship yards, or fisheries.

[Professor Hardknocks]

Originally posted by FoxFox:

Originally posted by Old School:

Then you have to ask if every land oriented EQ should also be limited to one per city. Why should we hate on coastal players so much? F- realism, we need a balanced game.

Well it would just be nice to have both realism and balance :)

One who trades fun (or balance) for realism deserves neither and loses both.

We should just let people have fun and let having multiple culture ports be balanced by having multiple culture every other building you already built.

[Matthew]

Outside of Norse, are people actually building that many to begin with? It seems like with Phoenicians I generally only get about 2 decent ones up. Carthage may be able to get a couple more if new territory in classical allows it.

Some people get pretty obsessed with realism, but I'm not sure 2 or 3 unique harbor districts out of the 20-ish territories you eventually get is a problem.

If anything, it is just as unrealistic with any district spam later on. An attached outpost is essentially the equivalent of a small town, but you will still build a research lab in every one. Population of 500. A couple bars, a church. Oh, and the local RESEARCH LAB, the staple of every small town.

[AOM]

Originally posted by Old School:

Not every soil plot is abundant in nutrients. But here we are, just farming everything without crop rotation or anything.

Exactly, why people are trying to make this about realism I do not know. This is a game where people can farm in the tundra and turn into a caravel when they jump into the water.

This is a game mechanic. If you made it so any city could only have one water EQ no matter how many coast territories it had attached to it, there would be no point to cultures with a harbor EQ, they would be worthless in comparison to cultures that can place an EQ in every territory attached to a city. This is especially so given that it's probably the case that the city exists in a nation that also has inland cities where no EQ can be built in that era anyway.

Further, there are at least a few examples of culture combinations that are far more powerful than combining all of the harbor EQ cultures. Why pick on the coastal nations? Why not go after combinations that include the Egyptian Pyramid and the Khmer Baray? Or, how about the combination of the Franks and Edo Japanese (even without their districts). Maybe the devs should just dictate which combinations the player picks so no one can effectively stack culture bonuses and EQs. Oh, wait, effectively combining the various features of each culture is one of the main elements of Humankind.

[jonnin]

I think part of this, the game terminology has broken down.
what the game calls a 'city' is really a 'province capital' and the 'territories' attached are really 'cities'. Each of those having a port is fine.
it is weird for a territory to have 4 ports, yes. The issue there is that the buildings, instead of upgrading (which is sort of supported, see artisan quarter -> manufacturer), are not supporting upgrades. Ideally your one port would be enhanced by the upgrades, not split out. This should be true on land too... your special manufacturing building is upgraded with new tech or rebuilt; you don't put a new one down beside a 2000+ year old one (if you keep the old one, its for tourism, not making things).
So maybe that needs to flip into a suggestion of upgrading buildings instead of plopping multiple down through the ages. Does not change much other than getting a few tiles back, though -- instead of 3 buildings with a bonus, you now have 1 building with a much bigger bonus (and extra twice over because its arguably your best location for it). OR... they can leave it alone and its just one of those quirky game mechanics that would not really make that much sense IRL but it represents something that mostly would.

[Dorok]

Originally posted by Matthew:

Outside of Norse, are people actually building that many to begin with? It seems like with Phoenicians I generally only get about 2 decent ones up. Carthage may be able to get a couple more if new territory in classical allows it.

There's no point to restrain to new territories, and that's all the point of allowing them even if there's already a harbor. Carthage ports are quite better, but no matter how even without restriction, check how many territories and how many with harbor possibility, much less.

I doubt anybody pick Norse (Vikings) for their harbor, they rule for sea invasion, either new world, either for pure attack strategy.

Originally posted by Matthew:

Some people get pretty obsessed with realism,

Yeah but objectively any game has a ton and more unrealistic points from details to huge elements, but often many players do see them when they are used to them. A fun example is pikes attack hitting man in front and man behind, sure.

[AOM]

Originally posted by Dorok:

I doubt anybody pick Norse (Vikings) for their harbor, they rule for sea invasion, either new world, either for pure attack strategy.

I pick the Norse because they're so much fun to play. Their harbor is a nice boost to population if you've played lean for a couple eras, their ransack bonus is very entertaining, and they get first dibs on new land if you've been keeping up on tech. I know they aren't the favorite of the min/max crowd, but you aren't gonna lose because you chose them, and they're a blast.

[Dorok]

Yeah ransaking a lot, even if it can be a war tactic, I haven't yet explore this much.

For invading new world they are quite a good option in case of weak situation. Not only the +3 move is really big, but you can get in advance invasion ships that can go safely through any sea. With always the option to rush to the tech ignoring many others first.