Are Granaries useless?

[Zanthis]

I've seen people laude the Pyramids as the best wonder in the game and include granaries in they're REXing stratagies but to me granaries seem almost useless.

In the early part of my games my cities (after building a temple) alternate between building settlers and deffensive units. With a little micromanagement and careful city placing, it is not hard to establish a balance were cities have a population of one or two, produce in succession a deffensive unit then a settler. When the cycle is complete, the population of the city is reduced back to its original population and the cycle repeates. Idealy, all my cities would produce another potential city, causing my empire to grow exponentialy. In reality I always have a few cities which are not easily balanced. This is do to either the city having an abundance of food (e.g. lots of floodplains/wheat but no forest/prarie in which case they build workers in addition to settlers, or an abundance of production but little food (e.g. lots of forests but no grasslands) in which case they consentrate on producing military units.

I find that granaries throw off this rythem and are a considerable wast of time and resourses. They halve the amount of food needed for population growth effectivly doubling the growth rate of the city. On the surface this may seem advantagous as more people mean more production but in reality, I find that corruption and (especialy) happyness nulifies any benefits to having more people early in the game. An aditional unit of population is useless if it has to be assigned as an entertainer to prevent my city from going into disorder. This useless unit of population becomes a burden if I have to sacrifice production in favor of food (i.g. if I stop working a forest and start working a grassland tile) to feed this entertainer. If I am lucky with luxuries in my empire and can keep cities with larger populations happy I tend to lose much of the additional production to coruption.

Consider also that granaries cost the same as settlers to build. In the time frame it takes to build a granary, I could have built a settler, seeding a new city which in turn will seed more cities.

Eventualy the REXing phase will slow as availible city sights disapear and my attention will turn to much needed buildings and military units. Marketplaces, libraries, cathedrils, aquaducts, universities, banks, etc are more uselful than the slight increase in population growth I'd gain from building a granary. By the time I run out of useful improvments to build I've usualy hit the 12 pop limit sometime in the mid-middle ages. This population limit will remain for sometime until sanitation. At this point, though, additional population needed to work the remaining city squares is quickly achieved do to the additional food generated from railroads.

As far as I can tell, granaries are not useful city improvments and consequently popularity of the Pyramids escapes me.

[Sean]

I don't build graneries, only the Pyramids, because I like to get the culture from wondrs. But it is nice to have the security of graneries in terms of starvation. They give you a few turns to to rectify a problem or increase production (temporarary) with out losing a population point. This is important for large cities, where it takes many turns for a city to grow.

[Ironikinit]

I'm not that crazy about the Pyramids myself. Out of the real early wonders I guess I prefer the Collosus. Of course, if you can get a good start on the Coll. may as well switch to the Lighthouse if you play continents like I do.

I do build granaries in some of my core cities especially if they have low food production (plains) or I have access to several luxuries early on. I find building extra workers solves over population. They can always be shuffled back into cities, which comes in handy during invasions as 7+ pop cities defend better.

[Thrawn05]

I don't start the Pyramid right away, but I do build a granery so I can churn out settlers without lossing population so quickly. Once the pyramid can be build within 50 turns, then I'll go at it.

[Chemical Ollie]

I have found myself stopping building granaries in the early game. There simply isn't time.

[Theseus]

I use granaries in a pretty limited fashion.

If I've got a non-corrupt town on a great food AND production site that also happens to be on a river, I'll probably at some point build something big there, starting when it's only 4-5 pop. In that case, if I can, and it doesn't delay me too much (i.e., I can buy the granary in 2 turns), I like to make sure that town / city grows maximally while it's building.

Also, interestingly, I'll build granaries in the opposite situation, having captured a 3 or more pop city / town. If in Despotism I'll poprush a granary, or, if later, having starved the pop down, I'll buy it. I like to get captured towns / cities filled with my own pop ASAP.

That said, those are two pretty specific examples. Otherwise, granaries are not in my typical building path.

[Jethro83]

No time for granaries in the early game. However, later on, when I am trying to build up metropolises, I build them if I didn't get the Pyramids.

[statusperfect]

Grannaries under communism and then... THE WHIP!!!

Mowahahahahahahahahahaaaah!!!

(Sorry. I just had to. Talk about granaries, population and rushing always reveal my true nature.)

[Gastric ReFlux]

Granaries and the Pyramids are definitely not useless. I've certainly won plenty of games without either of those, but when I took a look at my Hall of Fame, the most dominating games all were games where I had the Pyramids.

An aditional unit of population is useless if it has to be assigned as an entertainer to prevent my city from going into disorder.

There is also a useful thing called the luxury slider. In one or two cities one might use an entertainer. More than that, the use of the luxury tax can easily be offset by the returns in commerce and production.

I find that granaries throw off this rythem and are a considerable wast of time and resourses

Sometimes it's important to ask yourself if an expected pattern or rhythm is always the best. I first started golfing and had a swing which felt totally natural. When I began learning new ways to swing a club, it didn't feel right, but eventually let me shave about 15-20 strokes off my rounds.

This might be the most important underlying point to Civ3: you can have population without production, but you can't have production without population. Yes, granaries and the Pyramids can put demands on how to play the game, but the increased ease of expansion can pay off by satisfying the need to secure more luxury resources for the happiness of the citizens.

[alexman]

In my first couple of cities, I build exactly one granary, until hospitals are available. I have my worker chop down a forest-or-two to complete the granary as soon as possible, and try to time it so the granary finishes a turn before the town grows. This city is designated to pump out workers and settlers, and gives a huge boost to the early game.

This way, other cities can reach their production potential sooner, since they don't have to produce workers and settlers. This helps warmongering and building alike. Warmongerers produce barracks and units instead of settlers. Builders can start building key wonders immediately.

Of course, one problem with letting your cities grow and producing settlers mainly from your granary city is unhappiness. A very good strategy to counter this problem is to build lots of cheap offensive units and initially use them for garisson. Then, when it's time to attack, upgrade the cheap offensive units (warriors to swordsmen, and chariots to horsemen), increase your luxuries to deal with unhappiness, and start producing defensive units to replace the offensive ones that have left to conquer your neighbor.

[Arrian]

Granaries are useless from size 1-6, since cities grow pretty fast then anyway. But from 7-12 they are useful, and from 12 up, I'd say essential if you want your cities to grow before the game ends.

I hope to capture the Pyramids (no WAY I'm spending all those shields that early), and almost never build granaries in the early game, for the same reason... shields cannot be spared.

Key cities (such as, say, my Colossus city) that I really want to grow will get granaries soon after crossing from size 6 to 7. Others will probably wait until hospitals.

-Arrian

[Allemand]

I often build a granary in a high-growth city (two cows)right away. Sometimes it's my first city. Over the first 50-60 turns, the granary city will produce just as many or more settlers after building the granary as it would without taking time to build it. As someone said, the rhythm is different and I tend to build units in another city to support the settlers.

[Zanthis]

Gastric ReFlux;

[quote]Granaries and the Pyramids are definitely not useless. I've certainly won plenty of games without either of those, but when I took a look at my Hall of Fame, the most dominating games all were games where I had the Pyramids/[quote]

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.

There is also a useful thing called the luxury slider. In one or two cities one might use an entertainer. More than that, the use of the luxury tax can easily be offset by the returns in commerce and production.

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.

Sometimes it's important to ask yourself if an expected pattern or rhythm is always the best.

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

[Ironikinit]

I tend to build units in another city to support the settlers.

Yeah, and you can skip building a barracks in your settler builder/wonder city.

[The Pioneer]

I don't see how this can work! I try to have my cities build as many settlers as I can and as fast as I can but I, more often than not, have to wait for the city to grow before getting the settler, thats' a few turns lost for nothing. Now to counter that I build a couple granaries early in the first couple cities and I go for the Pyramids as soon as I can. On the other hand I only produce 3/4 max. of military units per city since I tend to stay away from any conflict in the early ages.

[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