Are Granaries useless?

[dworkin]

Granaries are good.
They're something to build in-between settlers and boost later production of settlers/workers.
And if you decide on being a commie their Marx's gift to the people.
And the Pyramids are just nifty.

[Gastric ReFlux]

Originally posted by Zanthis
Gastric ReFlux;



In the early game, I usualy only have happyness problems in citys were the population is allowed to grow unchecked. Newly founded boarder cities and cities producing settlers and workers don't have high enough populations to cause problems. Adjusting the luxury slider that early in the game usualy costs more commerce than it saves since it's applying to all cities a solution to a problem that only a few cities have.



Which is the purpose of this post. I'm looking for alternitive stratagies or things I haven't considered.

I feel there are two strategic paths being considered here. On the one path, the player works on maximizing what is there--I have often played this way too, trying to get as many shields as I can out of what I've got. The other path, which I've been exploring lately, looks to invest in the future by making population growth a higher priority.

There are two huge scarcities in the ancient age under despotism: population and food. I feel that in many cases, not all, those difficulties give enough reason to build granaries in cities. Say we have a city at size 4, with a granary it'll be able to grow after 10 turns, versus a size 4 without a granary, it'll be 20 turns.

After 10 turns, the granary city will pick up another tile, with an excellent chance of additional shield to production. That means 10 more shields than the city without a granary. When those 10 turns come in, the granary city picks up another tile at size 6, so it keeps the lead. Or maybe 2 shields, if it's city without fresh water, becoming time to maximize shield output. So then over the next 20 turns, it can be producing two more shields per turn than the non-granary city. That's 40 more shields. The investment in the granary has now given back 50 shields. These returns will show up throughout the game, pile up turn after turn.

That said, I don't always build granaries in every city. But I'll usually have at least two cities set up with them--they are my settler/worker farms. Those two cities are designed to reduce the loss of the scarce resources of population and food.

I'm curious why the pyramids made such a differance in your games. I have difficulty completing early wonders since at that point in the game I'm buisy land grabbing and expanding. If I attempt a wonder that early it is because of an unusualy favorable starting position. Also, my most dominating games have usualy come from very good starting positions.

That's a good point, one I'll have to think about. Actually, I've only ever built the Pyramids a few times, most times I just make a target of the civ that builds them. The two ancient age wonders I try for at Monarch level are the Great Library and the Hanging Gardens for the happiness.

However, last night I finished off an unusual game--a game of Arathorn's Always War. Every civ as you meet them the first time, you finish off diplomacy by declaring war, never accepting peace. When taking out my neighbor Joan with an archer rush, I got my first GL, and he ran back to Berlin and rushed the Pyramids. When watching the replay last night, the Pyramids may have well saved my butt.

Because of the time frame that I met all the civs in, I didn't have enough money to buy a world map from Shaka, the last civ I made contact with. So I fought much of the game with fog of war covering most of the world. Maybe that was good, because otherwise I would have seen that Hiawatha, Shaka, and Montezuma at that time had about 5x the number of cities I had. Yet I remember as the game went on, checking F11, that I was always number one in population. That population equated into the shields I needed to hold off the initial swarms of Impis, Jags, Mounted Warriors, archers, swordsmen. That population, easily built up, easily replenished, became the cities that helped to push back the war front.

I probably could have won the game without the Pyramids, but it was a lot easier with them.

[dworkin]

Being a despot is about scarcity. A high pop gain can deal to this by providing stuff or settlers. You get either by being on grasslands with rivers (for irrigation) or by having granaries and not caring about the inconsiquential ammounts ofgold.

[Allemand]

The starting position is the most important element of the early game, more important even than the traits for the civs. Good food-producing terrain and good shield-producing terrain is needed for cities to grow well. More citizens means more production power.

I always go for the Pyramids, but I'll be in the 2nd era before completing it. Meanwhile, I like to have one or two cities with granaries, to pump out more settlers while other cities specialize in other things (wonders, military units, infrastructure).

In the first 50 moves my government will be Despot, so the best I can hope for is a city with one or two cows and a couple more mined grasslands. That will give me about 8 or 9 shields when the population is 4, depending on whether I mine or irrigate the cows - I usually irrigate them but mining can be beneficial if there is another good food tile available. A settler will be completed when the population is 4 or 5, reducing it to 2 or 3. With a granary, I can start another settler right away and be completely recovered by the time it is built, then start another settler, etc. Without the granary I have to build something else in between settlers.

I only build one unit per city for defense, except for frontier cities, where two is usually sufficient, and keep a force of about six horsemen to send to trouble spots. A small military in the early game has some advantages. And let's face it, the AI is not going to overwhelm me.

[vee4473]

The Pyramids rock.

I don't think what you say about granaries producing so many people that corruption and happiness become a problem is true.

Because, by the time the pyramids are done, your civ should be well on the way to be able to either buy the new settlers for expansion to keep the pop down, or build the necessary improvement.

If you think that a large pop is desireable in the mid to late game, then I would think that "the pyramids" is an indispensible wonder...

[Redstone]

Am I being dumb building a granary early in my capital city only - after I've got 3 cities max? It usually works for me as the capital becomes the settler/worker farm, and there isn't much else to build in the way of city improvements at the beginning of the game. I don't normally build more granaries or the pyramids prefering to use the shields for my military, and avoiding that unhappy population boom.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Redstone
Am I being dumb building a granary early in my capital city only - after I've got 3 cities max? It usually works for me as the capital becomes the settler/worker farm, and there isn't much else to build in the way of city improvements at the beginning of the game. I don't normally build more granaries or the pyramids prefering to use the shields for my military, and avoiding that unhappy population boom.

hi ,

no , it shall let you keep food , and that is what you need to spit out settlers , you can catch up in no time with that granery , .....

its worth it

have a nice day