Granaries and walls are almost useless now.

[siredgar]

Especially with all that corruption in Civ 3.

Anyhow, why would you want to have cities grow any faster. I'm busy "pruning" the ones that get to size 6 or 12! The walls are only helpful up until size 6 right? Wouldn't my city grow to that size before the wall even gets built?

I'm just wondering if other people even bother building these city "improvements".

[Jaybe]

Hey, it depends on the situation. Personally, I rarely build walls. Sometimes I build granaries. Once in a great while I even SELL granaries if I don't want the metropolis to get any bigger.

Almost never used the despotic pop-rush anyway, but sometimes a town is in da plains (in Spain, that's where it mainly rains ) and if you want it to get anywhere ... especially if it's in the desert.

Corruption is only a factor if you have too many cities or if the city is really far out. It took me awhile to be okay with the corruption in the outlying districts. Also, you can modify how many cities are too many in the Editor.* Anytime you have more than one shield/gold producing, you have a viable producer. And if you are going for a score win, anyone that's not unhappy is adding to your score.

*I have increased the optimum cities on a huge map to 48 (from 32). I Like Huge maps and several-week-long games.

[Grim Legacy]

Population is strongly correlated with power. Even with unhappiness penalties, there is usually still a benefit to having more citizens (unit support for example).

You'd be wise to re-assess the power of granaries. =)

[Hurricane]

I would say that granaries are useful again, since they eliminated the "size-6 worker factory" strategy. I always had one or two cities pumping out workers which I then used to add to my other cities. No need for any granaries here (except for the ones in the worker factory cities). No the cities will actually have to grow by themselves.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Walls are very handy if you settle a town along desert, or one that will use only mines - and thus never grow beyond size 6. You will find the AI interested in these towns if they have strategic resources, any little defensive boost is helpful.

[siredgar]

Yes, but how often do you build these things? I still manage to win the game with at least 4000 points without building either of these. Also, you can just invade and take over the Great Pyramids if you really want granaries.

[DaXX]

i've been finding catapults to be one of the weakest units going. the rate of missfire is about 75%, totally unacceptable. at 1 movement point, it trails the rest of the army and requries special protection. their location is always known my the enemy, and is specifically targetted when weakly defended. they can't fire from ships. they can't pass through mountainous nor jungle terrain, if your army is landing at and assaulting from a mountains square, the catapults are worthless.

just my 3 cents

[DrFell]

Granaries were actually more useless in civ2, because of WLTxD (cheaper than granaries and works faster too). Walls are really useless now though I agree. I've never built one.

[Spiffor]

Granaries can be very useful if you tweak the rules a little :
In my rules, monarchy pop-rushes, and granaries are definately handy : because of the high corruption, you have plenty of people to sacrifice to the buildings which would need otherwise 60 turns to complete.
Also, my specialists produce 2 coins or beakers, which makes an overpopulated city more powerful (what specialists produce is not affected by corruption btw).

[Ironwood]

GANERIES:

In the early game, I don't build many graneries. I do build them under the circumstance that I am in some arid territory and need faster population growth to keep up with the neighbors, but other than that (and in the even that I build the Pyramids), I don't build them much.

But EVERY small city gets one once I've got Monotheism. I usually have a good amount of money flowing (I actually place imrpovements over tech in my calculations, since I can always just take the tech by force, but not buildings, and CULTURE is very important), and can quickly rushbuy happiness improvements and graneries, thus increasing my growth rate (and surpassing the neighbors). Once I have sanitation, every city gets a granery, since I want to build the population as quickly as possible (and not lose it immediately if a square gets polluted and the food level drops to negative, or I have a revolution and the drop in food production drops food supply to negative).

WALLS:

I typically only build these on borders I'm happy with (I just station more military where I'm not), or in villages in conquered territory that are at risk. They're really an immediate expediant, not something to keep well into the future. They're also nice because, in the rare event that an enemy manages to cut food production or bomb the population into their graves, upon reaching size 5, it'll still be able to defend itself as well as before.

Occasionally, I build these just because I've already build everything else I need to build, and have the time to waste. It's nice to have, and it doesn't cost anything to maintain. This happens frequently when I'm playing an Industrial civilization, mainly because the quick terrain improvements speeds up my building production.

[Panag]

well graneries ; they are usefull , why , well if food production is slow , and as for coruption , i went to check it , it depends where you are (city)

wall's , hmmmm , under or on size 6 they can be usefull if you are with the sity on a border or on a remote corner of the world !


have a nice day

[barefootbadass]

Walls are dirt cheap and there is no upkeep to them. They can't hurt in very high corruption cities that you aren't going to give an aqueduct.

Granaries aren't very useful to me until I'm ready to grow to 12, since pop rush is weak now. Only build in dedicated worker/settler cities.

[Kc7mxo]

I only place walls in places where I think the ai might sneak attack me, and I don't feel like stomping all over his face.

Granaries. . . . . aren't much help anymore. If I want them, I just conquer whoever built the pyramid. Which I believe is the consensus of opionion.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by DaXX
i've been finding catapults to be one of the weakest units going. the rate of missfire is about 75%, totally unacceptable. at 1 movement point, it trails the rest of the army and requries special protection. their location is always known my the enemy, and is specifically targetted when weakly defended. they can't fire from ships. they can't pass through mountainous nor jungle terrain, if your army is landing at and assaulting from a mountains square, the catapults are worthless.

just my 3 cents

I just had a glorious war against the Zulus. Their capital was on a hill and defended by impis, so horsemen wouldn't work. I drew up my swordsmen and my catapults. Patience was the essential ingredient. I had about 10 catapults, and it took about five turns, but the barracks were destroyed and the impis sufficiently weakened. The next turn we took the city with no casualties.

I don't use catapults much, but they worked well in this instance.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by siredgar
Especially with all that corruption in Civ 3.

Anyhow, why would you want to have cities grow any faster. I'm busy "pruning" the ones that get to size 6 or 12! The walls are only helpful up until size 6 right? Wouldn't my city grow to that size before the wall even gets built?

I'm just wondering if other people even bother building these city "improvements".

I often pop-rush a granary in the capital near the beginning of the game. I also pop-rush a temple in the outlying cities to secure my cultural perimeters. This is the only pop-rushing I do, and never more than one pop per town.

Walls are useful in minor towns where they won't grow fast.

[Kc7mxo]

the problem is that during most of the game fast units dominate, so your catapults and legions are just big targets.

A reasonable strategy given the combat system is to use fast units to wipe out enemy forces, and then bring in the artillery and slow heavy hitters to hit their cities. This seems like a sensible way for the game to play, but it is so boring, i find myself throwing my cavalry on the city before my infantry and artillery arrive out of impatience.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Kc7mxo
but it is so boring, i find myself throwing my cavalry on the city before my infantry and artillery arrive out of impatience.

That's the key! Patience. It is hard to hold the soldiers in line sometimes, but that is the duty of their commander.

Sometimes, a mad dash with horsemen, Genghis style, is appropriate; but in critical and dangerous situations, proper planning can make the difference between victory and ignominious defeat.

[barefootbadass]

Originally posted by Kc7mxo
the problem is that during most of the game fast units dominate, so your catapults and legions are just big targets.

The question is how much do fast units dominate now that retreat has been weakened(ie, what are the chances of retreat, with and without elite status)? Also, is there now a roll to retreat if a 1hp vs 1hp situation occurs, or is that situation the same as before?

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

Since the latest 1.17 patch, I've changed my playing style a little bit.

Before I thought the Egyptians were strong (rel&ind): a fast UU from the start, upgradable to cavalry. Military focus, after building enough warriors for exploration and happiness upkeeping, was on building those cheap war chariots and upgrading them asap.
Now fast units aren 't that 'immortal' anymore ...

Right now, until the appearance of cavalry, better defensive and offensive qualities lay in the use of swordsmen & catapults (The ancient Romans actually used this form of combined tactics, eg 'Gladiator'). When being attacked, catapults usually take away one HP of the attacker, effectively improving the odds of the defender.

Building a good road network and fortresses on strategic locations (defensive bonuses, protection of sources and lux.), equipped with catapults and, preferrably, pikemen, will turn your empire in a very tough competitor (playing emperor). Everyone entering your empire unwanted can be attacked from distance first (ok, only 1 range bombard), where the poorer chances of hitting are well smoothened by a serious number of catapults: using roads and well positioned fortifications try reducing your adversaries HP's to the minimum before attacking them with swordsmen. Offensive use (bombarding cities and eventually destroying barracks) can't be underestimated, as mentioned in this thread before (also the upgrade 'trick' from warrior to swordsmen).

Use your catapults both off. and def. in combination with swordsmen/pikemen or better UU's, and after experiencing first successes start building up a reservist horsemen army: helping were needed, finishing off unguarded wounded and becoming your main offensive power with the introduction of cavalry.
Whenever possible, build enough catapults: they will prove usefull all the game until bombers replace artillery (farther distance bombing).

New favorite civ: the French (comm.&ind.):
fast improvements from the beginning, better chances of building wonders (though too risky in ancient times, it's better to build up your combined armies), better money.
Religious ain't that necessary: just switch once to Republic and stick to it (make sure you build or conquer war unhappiness related wonders). In a very competitive game though, the lack of 1-turn anarchy might turn out to be the party spoiler ...

AJ

[star mouse]

Granaries:

I will build a granary in a fast-growing city in the early game (such as one with a few cows) so I can pump out settlers faster. Thus, the city can produce settler, settler, settler, settler instead of spearman, settler, spearman, settler. Only one granary is needed. If doing this, I sometimes have a slow-growing city with good production have Barracks and be the one producing veteran spearmen to go with the settlers.

Walls:

These can come in handy when you're under attack from barbarians. In one case, the presence of rush-built Walls made the difference when I was attacked by a massive uprising of 24 Barbarian knights (a mod). It gave me four Elite spearmen all with red hit points instead of an undefended city ransacked by Barbarians.

[Pius Popprasch]

I rarely build them. But Walls are cheap in a case of emergency and will help your Pikemen to hold the town. But overall I build 1 Walls every 2 games.

[Skanky Burns]

I build walls in almost every city. Why not??

Most of my frontier cities only produce 1 lousy shield, so why not build the cheapest city improvement and increase that cities defences?? While it is rendered obsolete by the city growing above size 6, with an aqueduct taking 60 turns to build (as well as waiting for the pop to grow) it will be a long time before that city will get to size 7.

Also, walls are maintenance free!!

[Zachriel]

I usually build walls in all my core cities. They are hardly ever of any value whatsoever. This is a bad strategy and a result of my perfectionist nature.

You should only build walls in towns which will not grow over 6 pop in a reasonable amount of time, such as in deserts or jungles. Then they are occassionally useful.

[star mouse]

Originally posted by Zachriel
You should only build walls in towns which will not grow over 6 pop in a reasonable amount of time, such as in deserts or jungles. Then they are occassionally useful.

Especially if those jungle or desert cities are on your frontier with an aggressive civ and you fear invasion.

[Grim Legacy]

The walls are also so cheap to build that it's rarely a big hit to your otherwise thriving towns. Only in the very early game walls can be foregone... but even then they can be used as a 'timer build' to plan the construction of settlers in line with city expansion.

Upkeep is zero, and the 20 shields (1 phalanx!) spent may prevent the later need to build additional spearmen in case of threats or barbs. Also, I was under the impression you could sell them. Maybe not very profitable, but soothening nonetheless.

[belchingjester]

Originally posted by Grim Legacy
The walls are also so cheap to build that it's rarely a big hit to your otherwise thriving towns. Only in the very early game walls can be foregone... but even then they can be used as a 'timer build' to plan the construction of settlers in line with city expansion.

Upkeep is zero, and the 20 shields (1 phalanx!) spent may prevent the later need to build additional spearmen in case of threats or barbs. Also, I was under the impression you could sell them. Maybe not very profitable, but soothening nonetheless.

I frequently use walls as a 'timer' build too - as noted, they are cheap and can improve survival markedly in small cities. I've tried a few different ways, and pop-rushing a granary in an early city can make a big difference in churning out settlers - and an occasional worker.
-belchingjester

[belchingjester]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
I build walls in almost every city. Why not??

Most of my frontier cities only produce 1 lousy shield, so why not build the cheapest city improvement and increase that cities defences?? While it is rendered obsolete by the city growing above size 6, with an aqueduct taking 60 turns to build (as well as waiting for the pop to grow) it will be a long time before that city will get to size 7.

I misremember - do they re-appear if the population drops below 7? Or is it just they don't confer any benefit if the city's 7 or above?

[Drefsab]

I build graneries in all my size 10-12 cities while researching medicine. That way, they are built by the time I have Sanitation. I start Hosptials immediately and then my cities grow into metropolis' that much faster.

I agree though, they aren't of much use in the early game as you hit size 6, then size 12 pretty quick anyway.

[godinex]

the grnarys are useful only if you build them first

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by godinex
the grnarys are useful only if you build them first

And it ain't over till it's over.