Why granaries don't work

[realpolitic]

Granaries are almost never worth it. Here's a comparison of choices in the early game:

#1
Cost of granaries - 60 shields 1 gold per turn
with +2 food city grows in 5 turns

#2
Cost of new city- settler + spearman 50 shields
3 free units (after spearman)
With +2 food 2 cities on average grow in 5 turns,
less unhappiness than #1

#3
3 archers or 2 swordsmen or 2 horsemen = 60 shields
should be able to conquer 1 city.
Increases the pop of empire
4 free units.

[Bluefrog]

While granaries aren't at the top of my build list, I think I value them slightly more than you do. In the extremely early game, I'll ignore them completely, but they can be handy once you have 4-5 cities under your belt. Drop one in a city that produces 4-5 shields regularly and has a bonus food tile, and use that city as a settler factory. I'm at work, trying to whittle away the minutes, so I don't have any hard numbers handy, but I've had a size 3 city, with a granary and the conditions set above, that could pop out a settler every six or so turns, when it hit pop 5. Have another city pumping out a steady stream of spearmen escorts, and this gives a massive, consistent boon to your REX phase.

[DaveMcW]

Check out nbarclay's granary analysis.

[Tuberski]

Granarie, to me, are a luxury, if I am going to use a settler factory, then yes it needs one, but otherwise, I'll try for the Pyramids or take it over after another Civ builds it.

ACK!

[Zachriel]

Re: Why granaries don't work

Originally posted by realpolitic
Granaries are almost never worth it. Here's a comparison of choices in the early game:

Well you did leave in the "almost never" qualifier. In some positions, the Granary can make the early game. In this game, completion of the Granary in 3000 BC assured Zululand's domination of the Limpopo River basin and surrounding areas. Indeed, historians view the completion of the Zimbabwean Granary as the key accomplishment leading to eventual victory centuries later.

http://www.zachriel.com/gotm12/Exploration.htm

Addendum: As always, it depends on the position. In this case, there are no obvious villains to attack, but there was plenty of available land to settle, much of it enriched by rivers. Zimbabwe also had a food bonus. Rapid expansion was the key to this position. The rest of the game of was somewhat anti-climactic.

[realpolitic]

I stand by my anlysis of granaries in the early game. Expansion and especially conquest(when there's a sucker near by) are much better. However, when there's no decent space left, and you're at peace (eigther because you're waiting for a treaty to end or your opponent is ready for you or you need culture to prevent flips), then granaries become a possibility, especially as worker factories to build and move population later.

[Mazarin]

it's all about how much space you have to expand If the next enemy is just 10 tiles away, build barracks, military units (maybe one settler)...and take over the cities he has built with archers...if you have plenty space: build granaries in your first cities...they will pay off!

[Datajack Franit]

I build granaries only by getting the Pyramids-otherwise I just skip them and wait middle ages

[Franses]

I hardly ever build a granary either. Their are some special circumstances that makes me decide differently but that's about once every 10 games or so.

[realpolitic]

Zachariel - here's the comparison for your city --

Capitol with granary -

60 shields cost 1 gold/turn
expansion in 4 turns = +.25 pop/turn

Capitol with daughter city (and spearman)
50 shields

capitol expands in 7 turns =.14 pop/turn
daughter expands in 10 turns=.1 pop/turn
-----------------
.24 pop/turn

Not much difference! Except you get less territory

It's also possible to get such fertile land on one city it grows out of control!

The Zulu have a lousy UU, and expansionism isn't so hot -- the price of all those techs crash when they are traded for maps, (the more civs have a tech the lower the price)so it's best to buy less important ancient techs then instead of being expantionist


Datajack - to get the Pyramids you have to start with just a handful of cities and you don't get anything until you've built the equivalent of 7 granaries - it may sound great but it doesn't work. Better to have 1 AI build it and the others waste their shields.

[DaveMcW]

Since I know how much you like math, realpolitic...

A settler requires 30 shields and 40 food. It only requires 20 food in a city with a granary. So let's see how fast we can get them to expand our empire.

Size 3 city with granary working 3 irrigated plains:
+2 food/turn = settler in 10 turns = 0.1 settlers/turn
+4 shields/turn = settler in 7 turns = 0.14 settlers/turn
0.1 settlers/turn (limited by food)

2 size 1 cities with no granary working irrigated plains:
+2 food/turn = settler in 20 turns = 0.05 settlers/turn
+2 shields/turn = settler in 15 turns = 0.07 settlers/turn
0.05 settlers/turn (limited by food)
0.05 * 2 = 0.1 settlers/turn

Tie.



Size 3 city with granary working 3 irrigated plains, including 1 wheat:
+3 food/turn = settler in 8 turns
+4 shields/turn = settler in 7 turns
0.13 settlers/turn (limited by food)

2 size 1 cities again, this time one has the wheat:
+3 food/turn = settler in 14 turns = 0.07 settlers/turn
+2 shields/turn = settler in 15 turns = 0.07 settlers/turn
0.07 settlers/turn (balanced food and shields)
0.07 + 0.05 (from before) = 0.12 settlers/turn

Tiny advantage for granary.



Size 3 city with granary working 3 irrigated plains, including 2 wheats:
+4 food/turn = settler in 6 turns
+4 shields/turn = settler in 7 turns
0.14 settlers/turn (limited by shields)

2 size 1 cities, each with 1 irrigated plains wheat:
0.07 * 2 = 0.14 settlers/turn

Tie, but the granary could do better by increasing population and therefore shield output.



Size 5 city with granary working 5 irrigated plains, including 2 wheats:
+4 food/turn = settler in 6 turns = 0.17 settlers/turn
+6 shields/turn = settler in 5 turns = 0.2 settlers/turn
0.17 settlers/turn (limited by food)

2 size 2 cities, each with 1 irrigated plains wheat and 1 irrigated plains:
+3 food/turn = settler in 14 turns = 0.07 settlers/turn
+3 shields/turn = settler in 10 turns = 0.1 settlers/turn
0.07 settlers/turn (limited by food)
0.07 * 2 = 0.14 settlers/turn

Granary wins.



Size 5 city with granary working 5 irrigated plains, including 3 wheats:
+5 food/turn = settler in 4 turns = 0.25 settlers/turn
+6 shields/turn = settler in 5 turns = 0.2 settlers/turn
0.2 settlers/turn (limited by shields)

2 size 2 cities again, this time one has two wheats:
+4 food/turn = settler in 10 turns = 0.1 settlers/turn
+3 shields/turn = settler in 10 turns = 0.1 settlers/turn
0.1 settlers/turn (balanced food and shields)
0.1 + 0.07 (from before) = 0.17 settlers/turn

Granary wins.



Size 3 city with granary working 3 irrigated plains cattle:
+5 food/turn = settler in 4 turns = 0.25 settlers/turn
+7.5 shields/turn = settler in 4 turns = 0.25 settlers/turn
0.25 settlers/turn (balanced shields and food)

2 size 1 cities working irrigated plains cattle:
+3 food/turn = settler in 14 turns = 0.07 settlers/turn
+3 shields/turn = settler in 10 turns = 0.1 settlers/turn
0.07 settlers/turn (limited by food)
0.07 * 2 = 0.14 settlers/turn

You should be shot if you don't build a granary here.



In conclusion, the effectiveness of a granary is based on the amount of bonus food you have. I always try to start my first or second city around bonus food so I can build one.

[Mazarin]

Intresting post, DaveMcW...I'm just not sure whether it is enough to reduce your observations on how fast you build settlers: e.g. on narrow maps (especially on deity) I often don't have enough room to build more than 3 cities...(I also don't want to ) so while building the granary, my enemies will take away all the land and I'll be reduced to an OCC. In this case it is important to build my two first settlers ASAP -and then to concentrate on military...no time for granaries. It's completely different on maps with plenty of land: although your second and third cities will come later your territory will be bigger when you have finished your REXing phase. In this case, I prefer building two or three granaries. So the most important reason for me is what my map looks like -not how much bonus food I have

[DuncanK]

Economic and Producation Value

There are two more values for granaries; Economic and Production. A city with a granary that also produces settlers and workers makes more money and produces more. That is because its population is replenished faster. Still I only build them in the early game if I don't have any super-food cities. I tend to rely on my super-food cities to produce settlers and workers and building a granary in these cities would be overkill. I would say that I only build a granary in the early game maybe 10% of the time.

[Bamspeedy]

realpolitic- You are looking at this from a one dimensional point of view. Sure, if you have a choice of only 1 city with a granary or two cities without a granary for the whole game, then yes taking the 2 cities is a no-brainer.

But, why can't you have a granary AND build more cities?

I'm sure you read my response in your similar post over at CFC, but I'll post my study to benefit more people. If you compare two cities (one city with a granary, and one without), by the time the city without a granary reaches size 12, the other city (with the granary) had already been at size 12 for 75 turns! And has produced 400 more shields than the granary-less city.

This will amount to even more shields if you have the city building any settlers/workers, because the city with granary can bounce back up in population faster than the granaryless city (or be able to produce twice as many settlers/workers, depending on how you look at it).

If you don't build a granary in a city until it reaches size 7, then you already lost out on at least 150 shields.

And not to mention the economic aspect that DuncanK pointed out.

I will agree that in some situations, building a granary may not be feasible (high corrupt cities, being pressured by war from other civs, culture needs are more important, etc.), but granaries will pay off more in the long run and this makes the Pyramids so valuable (if you start on a decent sized continent).

If playing tiny-small maps or a very crowded map where you'll only have room for 4-5 cities, then settlers before the granary will be smarter. But on less crowded maps and larger maps, building the granary first will pay off much more. The granary first tactic usually doesn't start outexpanding the settlers only tactic until 2000 B.C., so it depends on whether or not everyone will still be in the expansion phase at 2000 B.C. And after your done having your capital spit out settlers, your population bounces back up in size so quickly to build wonders.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by realpolitic
The Zulu have a lousy UU, and expansionism isn't so hot -- the price of all those techs crash when they are traded for maps, (the more civs have a tech the lower the price)so it's best to buy less important ancient techs then instead of being expantionist

Zimbabwe hits pop 4 in 2800 BC and then produces Settlers every 5 turns or so. Though I am admittedly not a "Civ3 numbers expert," DaveMcW's cogent analysis matches my own gaming experience.

By the way, the expansionist trait worked wonders in this position. With the extra cash and techs from exploration, with cash from the sale of maps, with the advantages of the Granary, and most importantly, with knowledge of the local terrain, Zululand's expansion was rapid and decisive.

(I do agree that there are times when delaying the Granary is a good idea, especially on smaller maps, or when there are good tactical reasons for producing an early Settler.)