Why granaries don't work

[DuncanK]

Maybe this only aplies to industrial civs. I haven't tried it with other civs. With the French I don't have to trade early settlers for and early granary, although the settler may be delayed slightly. I build the granary right after the last settler (first one built). I wouldn't be able to build another settler right away anyway because my population wouldn't be sufficient. So I will have to trade some military probably. Probably some warriors to explore with. So maybe in some cases this agruement is about granaries vs. exploration or granaries vs. war not granaries vs. settler production.

[punkbass2000]

I'm thinking the Americans would probably be an excellent civ to go the granary route with... perhaps that shall be my next game.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by punkbass2000
I'm thinking the Americans would probably be an excellent civ to go the granary route with... perhaps that shall be my next game.

I think they might be the perfect granary civ especially if you have low food production. I always get my as kicked as the americans for some reason though. I think I don't build up my military up enough with them.

[Bamspeedy]

Originally posted by DuncanK
Maybe this only aplies to industrial civs. I haven't tried it with other civs. With the French I don't have to trade early settlers for and early granary, although the settler may be delayed slightly. I build the granary right after the last settler (first one built). I wouldn't be able to build another settler right away anyway because my population wouldn't be sufficient. So I will have to trade some military probably. Probably some warriors to explore with. So maybe in some cases this agruement is about granaries vs. exploration or granaries vs. war not granaries vs. settler production.

Yes, in some situations, you may not have to trade any settlers (the settler might just get delayed a few turns). This is where you have just +2 food and working 2-shield tiles (game on forest, mined bonus grassland). In a city like this, you have the production, but just don't have the food to grow fast enough. I've built the granary before any warriors or settlers before, but the lack of exploration usually hurts you. So building another scout (or 2 warriors) before the granary is where the settler vs. granary debate comes in. Also, when you have a cattle or wheat, you now have the food, but not the shields, making the settler vs. granary debate stronger because you would be hitting size 3 sooner.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Bamspeedy


I've built the granary before any warriors or settlers before, but the lack of exploration usually hurts you.

Yeah, I agree if you are playing an exploration civ like America. With an industrial civ that is not an exploration civ, like the French, I think you still build the granary.

[Bamspeedy]

Well, the French should still build some exploring warriors before the granary. You don't want to throw your settlers into the darkness, not knowing where to go. By exploration, I mean finding new city sites and establishing contact with the AI (which will help your tech pace), not necessarily just grabbing goody huts.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Bamspeedy
Well, the French should still build some exploring warriors before the granary. You don't want to throw your settlers into the darkness, not knowing where to go. By exploration, I mean finding new city sites and establishing contact with the AI (which will help your tech pace), not necessarily just grabbing goody huts.

Yeah, with the French warriors and walls are all you can start with. So yes you build warriors first. Then when you have enough population for a settler you build a settler. If you don't have a 3-food square, then you build a granary.

[Dominae]

Americans are the only civ that can efficiently (industriously!) chop Forest to build a Granary right from the start (I discuss this in the Americans thread). Although you'll probably want to build a couple of Scouts before you start on your Granary, you'll still be way ahead of the competition (so to speak; the AI gets free units). Nothing beats the Americans for early-game expansion.


Dominae

[kmill25]

The only way I build grainaries early is through the Pryamids. Other than that, I'll wait until I have nothing better to do with the shields.

[HaVoC]

Building Granaries without consideration can often be harmful, since uncontrolled growth can lead to your cities revolting every few turns.
I think there are four reasons for when to build a granary.

1. You have access to lots of luxury goods so that growth will be no problem.

2. A city has a very limited food supply.

3. You have a city in an uncolonized area and want to use it to produce lots of settlers / workers.

4. Your city is already large and grows slowly.

Otherwise granaries aren't useful. It's a case-by-case desition.

[realpolitic]

I've found a more compeling reason not to build granaries now that I'm playing at Diety level, I'd get crowded out. Now I just build 2 cities, so I have 8 free units. The quick gain in shields with newly conquered cities is faster than the long term gain in food, I assume it takes about 60 shields to conquer 30 more than to settle.

It's good to see that the discussion here has some mathematical component here. If I seem a bit fanatical I apologize, I had been helping some government institutions deal with Califoria's budget cuts with some simple arithmetic, and was greeted very favorably, until it conflicted with a manager's cherished ideas, I got called every name in the book, and got thrown our on my ear. I'm glad this discussion is mathematical, it's weird to see grey haired men insulting each other like they were in third grade. In the 21st Century there are lots of people with Masters Degrees who don't understand the value of arithmetic. Thanks to those of you who showed what happens in the long term, but I think at that point, conquest is best.

[Mazarin]

well, maybe a mathematical approach would be best -assuming you want to consider map size, number of opponents, terrain and many other factors...but as this is just a game we should rely on our expieriences and conclude that granaries do pay off in many cases and are not worth the investment in many others.

[DuncanK]

Granary Test

I tested this out. I started a new game with the Americans. I made the world large, made 9 AIs, roving tribes, and a normal climate etc..., Monarchy level.

I saved the game on the first turn. Then I played the game twice until 1790 B.C..

On the first game I built 2 granaries in my first two cities. I used the clear forest strategy for both granaries. I built 1 scout before the first granary and 1 warrior before the second granary.

On the second game I did not build any granaries. I built 2 more scouts and I would say at least 5 warriors in place of the granaries.

Here's the run down on both games at 1790 B.C.:

Game 1 (w/2 granaries):

10 cities
4 settlers
6 workers
Population 386,000

Game 2 (without granaries):

8 cities
5 settlers
5 workers
Population 260,000

Notes:

1) 2 of the settlers in game 2 were going to build cities on the very next turn.

2) I had tech parity on both games (all the early military tech and writing).

3) I had a bigger military in game 2 (mostly warriors, but some spearmen, archers and horsemen)

4) I had a couple hundered more bucks in game 1 (assumably because of the smaller military throughout the game)

Analysis:

I think I did better in game one and therefore I'm now convinced that granaies are the way to go with these settings.

Bigger is Better. I stopped the game at the end of my expansion stage in game 1. This is where I would have built up my military and conquered an AI in order to get more land area. Even though my military was bigger in game 2 in 1790 B.C., my production was greater in game 1. Also, I was more towards my miltary production stage and at the end of my expansion stage in game 1 than in game 2. In short, I was farther ahead in my stategy in game 1.

The large early miltary (trade of for the granaries) tended to be a drag, more than a benefit. I still was not able to get a lot of barbarian villages with my warriors, because the AIs got a lot of them.

The extra scouts in game 2 were not able to get too much more huts if any.

Realpolitic,

As someone trained in Economics I know that mathmatical analysis has limited potential in many areas. I usually ignore mathematical analysis when it comes to these games, because it usually doesn't hold up in actual game play. We should all rely on our game experience instead of crunching numbers. I believe the numbers will lie to us more often than not.

[Bamspeedy]

Double post-
See below

[Bamspeedy]

Havoc-
If you use the governors or check your city every time it grows in size you won't have any problems with revolts.

1. Like has been said before- The luxury slider is a wonderful thing. On deity, you will be running 0% science anyways, so cash is not a problem. A size 6 city running as much as 50% luxury still has more money to devote to science/tax than a size 3 city with 20% luxury. So using the luxury rate early in the game is not a problem. After you get the granary built and other cities can build workers to hook up luxuries and build military police to send to the capital, then you can lower luxury rate alot.

2. Well, if the city has high-food it can still benefit from a granary, but yes it may not be quite as much worth it (it terms of # of turns it takes to build a settler).

If you are producing +5 food the fastest you can build settlers is 8 turns without a granary and 4 turns with a granary.
At +4 food it can build a settler every 6 turns with a granary and 10 turns without a granary.
At +3 food it can build a settler every 8 turns with a granary and 14 turns without a granary.
At +2 food it can build a settler every 10 turns with a granary and 20 turns without a granary.

If the capital is producing +4 or +5 food/turn and have a granary, that city can usually have a build order of settler, settler, settler, settler.... All your other cities can build nothing but military. Without a granary your capital will usually have to build something else in between some of those settlers because your population drops so much and you need to let your capital grow again.

3. Any city that will produce alot of settlers and workers should build a granary.

4. You're right if there are still tiles for it to use. If the city is already maxed out at size 12, then don't bother to build a granary until just before you build a hospital.

In DuncanK's test, that was on a large map, which is ideal for a granary. And on his point #4, he also had more income because of the faster growth and his granary cities being a larger size.

Realpolitic plays tiny maps, so a granary is not the best move there.

I often hear the date of 2000 B.C. being thrown around as the point where granaries start pulling ahead of when you don't build a granary. On tiny maps the expansion phase would be over well before 2000 B.C. On larger maps you'll still be expanding at 1000 B.C., sometimes later than this.