Favourite Wonder

[Empiremaker]

you should not build granaries at all in the early period of the game.

What? Sometimes Granaries are the best 1st build. Still, doubling growth is amazing, especially in a Settler/Worker factory.

 

[Diviner]

What? Sometimes Granaries are the best 1st build. Still, doubling growth is amazing, especially in a Settler/Worker factory.

oh i should have been posted misunderstandable way. well the correct word is not at all, but almost never. i also build granary as 1st in my capital, but then no more grannies for a time.

the big thing i learned over my games, you don't need everything to be built as soon as it is available, granaries are little useful unless you have aqueduct. but aquas are expensive and comes at the end of AA, so having granaries in 20 cities in the stone age.. well thats close to wasted money imo as cities growing fast enough in town stage. growth per 10 turns is enough isn't it?

i think production is more important in the early stage as your cities are highly corrupt (despotism) so you won't gain that much with that some more popheads, but an unhappy citizen which needs to take care of if one likes to whip maybe granaries are helpful to regain population, but you lose on the bargain then, because the extra unhappiness needs an entertainer usually. eventually luxury slider can't be set to like 50%...

i dont say that 'hands down i'm right' or so, i'm saying that pyramids is an overrated wonder in my opinion, wasteful to build with extremely high cost (400 shields!) and you should manage your empire instead of building such unnecessary wonders (again just in the AA). pyramids is one of the few wonders which will reveal its precious effect much-much later (like leonardo or smith).

 

[MAS]

oh i should have been posted misunderstandable way. well the correct word is not at all, but almost never. i also build granary as 1st in my capital, but then no more grannies for a time.

To decide if a granary is useful, determine what increases growth (measured in surplus food per turn, or sfpt) the most: a granary, or a settler?
A settler increases growth by the amount of surplus food the next city-site can grant.
The granary doubles growth of the city you are building it.

If the current city produces 5 sfpt, a granary is worth 5 sfpt! And since it costs 60 shields, that is 12 shields per sfpt.
If the current city produces 4 sfpt, a granary is worth 15 shields per sfpt.
If the current city produces 3 sfpt, a granary is worth 20 shields per sfpt.
If the current city produces 2 sfpt, a granary is worth 30 shields per sfpt.

If the future city-site grants 2 sfpt, a settler is worth 15 shields per sfpt.
If the future city-site grants 3 sfpt, a settler is worth 10 shields per sfpt.
If the future city-site grants 4 sfpt, a settler is worth 7.5 shields per sfpt.
If the future city-site grants 5 sfpt, a settler is worth 6 shields per sfpt.

So as you can see if the future city can output 2 sfpt, a granary in the current city is only worth it if the current city already has 5 sfpt, and is almost equal if its has 4 sfpt. (the granary will also cost maintenance, and the city will also add shield and commerce output, in addition to unit support, with 4 sfpt a settler is still a better choice.)
If future city sites have more than 2 sfpt, even a 5 sfpt doesn't justify a granary, and a settler should be build instead, until all hight food sites are settled.

Once your initial growth spur is over, you may want to specialize cities for building workers and settlers, while others specialize in units, thats when you may want to build a granary in those cities that specialize in settler and worker production, even if they have less than 5 sfpt.

granaries are little useful unless you have aqueduct.

I would not build a granary just to make my city grow faster, once it hits size 12, the granary would no longer be needed, kind of wasteful use of 60 shields. Its faster to build workers in a specialized worker pump and join them in the slow growing cities.

i think production is more important in the early stage as your cities are highly corrupt (despotism) so you won't gain that much with that some more popheads, but an unhappy citizen which needs to take care of

Growth is the most important in the early ages. Food is never corrupted.
The happiness is dealt with by moving pop out of cities. By building settlers and workers, the cities remain small.

if one likes to whip maybe granaries are helpful to regain population,

This is true in Civ4, in Civ3, this is not an issue, you wouldn't whip fast enough to make the granary worth it, (except in a 100K culture game, but then you'd have build/conquered the pyramids by the time you start whipping culture improvements)

eventually luxury slider can't be set to like 50%...

In the early game, growth is so important, I'd happily set it to 50% or even higher, if thats whats needed to keep my cities building settlers!

i'm saying that pyramids is an overrated wonder in my opinion, wasteful to build with extremely high cost (400 shields!)

Its sure not worth it to keep one of your early cities tied up to building the pyramids, I agree here, because of the exponential factor in empire growth.
If your 3th city builds the pyramids, the growth exponent is reduced by 33%.

But the effect itself is one of the most useful in the game, it doubles growth rate! If I get a SGL early the pyramids is my first choice! (Exception: when I find myself on a small island, then the lighthouse is better)

 

[Dishpan_Hans]

Statue of Zeus. Which is also frustrating because you need ivory to make it.

I cringe when some other civ builds it.

Knights Templar just doesn't have the same effect. Gunpowder tends to come quick afterward, and those slow moving crusaders are not the juggernaut that ancient cavalry are.

Great Library is good if you are falling a bit behind, however, usually what happens is one of those @@## civs ahead of you builds it first.

Eiffel Tower is great, too. Love that little movie...oops...wrong game.

 

[ThinkTank]

To decide if a granary is useful, determine what increases growth (measured in surplus food per turn, or sfpt) the most: a granary, or a settler?
A settler increases growth by the amount of surplus food the next city-site can grant.
The granary doubles growth of the city you are building it.

If the current city produces 5 sfpt, a granary is worth 5 sfpt! And since it costs 60 shields, that is 12 shields per sfpt.
If the current city produces 4 sfpt, a granary is worth 15 shields per sfpt.
If the current city produces 3 sfpt, a granary is worth 20 shields per sfpt.
If the current city produces 2 sfpt, a granary is worth 30 shields per sfpt.

If the future city-site grants 2 sfpt, a settler is worth 15 shields per sfpt.
If the future city-site grants 3 sfpt, a settler is worth 10 shields per sfpt.
If the future city-site grants 4 sfpt, a settler is worth 7.5 shields per sfpt.
If the future city-site grants 5 sfpt, a settler is worth 6 shields per sfpt.

So as you can see if the future city can output 2 sfpt, a granary in the current city is only worth it if the current city already has 5 sfpt, and is almost equal if its has 4 sfpt. (the granary will also cost maintenance, and the city will also add shield and commerce output, in addition to unit support, with 4 sfpt a settler is still a better choice.)
If future city sites have more than 2 sfpt, even a 5 sfpt doesn't justify a granary, and a settler should be build instead, until all hight food sites are settled.

I have to disagree. The problem with this argument is that it considers the choice between a settler and a granary as a one-off decision.
It depends on the circumstances if that is right.

At the start of REX, in a food poor starting location (only 2 sfpt locations),
but with a lot of room to expand to (say large or huge map), a granary first will shorten the production cycle of many settlers to come,
even if it will delay the production of the first or first few settlers. So the real value of the granary (at least for REX) must depend on the number of settlers that will be built in the city.

At the end of REX, in a city that will maybe only build 1 settler before expansion is over, the considerations by MAS are valid.

In general I think the right perspective is something like the following. A granary first will always pay of in the long run. It must be able to calculate how long that run is, that is, how many settlers that is; the answer will likely vary with shields and food production. Suppose that n settlers is the turning point. Then if you think REX is going to last longer than n settlers build a granary first, otherwise don't build one.

 

[Marsden]

I don't think any thing is really "always first" because if you have flood plain wheat or some cows you can get the 4 or 5 turn growth, even in despotism. But if you need 10 turns to get the 2 pop back then a granery would be better. Some games I never built the granery and still had a good settler factory. It depends on your location.

 

[MAS]

At the start of REX, in a food poor starting location (only 2 sfpt locations),
but with a lot of room to expand to (say large or huge map), a granary first will shorten the production cycle of many settlers to come, even if it will delay the production of the first or first few settlers.

This would only be true if all other city sites have only 1 sfpt.

So the real value of the granary (at least for REX) must depend on the number of settlers that will be built in the city.

This is true, but why would you build settlers only in one city?

Your other cities should also be building settlers after all...

If your first city has 2 sfpt and your other city sites also have 2 sfpt, then don't build any granaries until you start specializing your cities.
Just build settlers in every city.

1 city becomes 2, (1st settler) becomes 4, (2nd settler), becomes 8, becomes 16!
This is way faster than building a granary fist! If the the granary delays your first 2 settlers, it actually delays (2+4+8= ) 14 settlers!



Anyway, we are getting off-topic for this thread...

 

[ThinkTank]

Anyway, we are getting off-topic for this thread...

To this I agree, but not to some of the other things you say. I will start a new thread on this when I have time to state my arguments (I'll PM you when I do).

 

[ecuwins]

I will look forward to the granary thread.

 

[ThinkTank]

Here is the thread on the granary issue:

Granary or settler?

 

[eldar]

Back on topic:
Ancient: Pyramids. The only (non-20K) ancient wonder worth burning an SGL on. Otherwise he's saved for...
Medieval: Sun Tzu or Leo's - depends on the size of my empire and disposition/make up of my troops, and on an Archi Leo's every time.
Industrial: Hoover's, by a long stretch.
Modern: Internet - indispensible in a continent or pangaea-based space race.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

• Pyramids: Provides a very smooth, but extraodinary fertile bedding for your empire. Great for almost any type of game.

• Great Library: Simply the most violent gamebreaker. Makes only sense on higher levels, though.

• JS Bach's Cathedral: By far the best of the happyness wonders. May indirectly work miracles for your bankaccount/research. Downside: required Music Theory, which is good for nothing else.

• Theory of Evolution: IA Techs are worth a lot and getting two for free is simply a must have.

• United Nations: Not so much a wonder than a victory condition. Often saves me the hassle of conquering that other continent.

 

[Taras Bulba]

•Theory of Evolution: IA Techs are worth a lot and getting two for free is simply a must have.

finally, someone sees the true power of the ToE

• United Nations: Not so much a wonder than a victory condition. Often saves me the hassle of conquering that other continent.

haha, i would say more of saftey barrier, so that the AI doesn't build it, and beat you diplomatically (ive had it happen, sadly, because i warred with all of the other nations)

 

[ecuwins]

Yes TOE is a must. Also, can be used for the Hoover slingshot -- another must have wonder for many. This combo can provide a lead that the AI will never* catch up to.

*Ok if never is too strong of a word for you then replace it with "hardly ever".

 

[Doge Soprano]

I usually try to build something that that eliminates my civ' weakness. Say if I'm not scientific I try to get Great Library etc. If I settle in good land I don't bother building Pyramids, etc.

 

[eldar]

Yes, Industrial techs are expensive. But Modern techs are more expensive. With a tech lead you're not likely to lose and no serious competition for ToE, do you:
- Build it right away anyway and pick up free Atomic Theory and Electronics (possibly with a Hoover pre-build), or
- Time it to complete on your modern era entrance, pick up free Computers and Miniaturization, with an Internet pre-build. (Or if you're going for a diplo win - time it with second-last IA tech to pick up last IA tech, and Fission, then flip a UN pre-build.)

 

[Rodrig0]

JSBach and Sistine all the way!!

Really, I'd (and do) sell my soul to the devil (in the shape of any scientific civ with a tech lead) to get those two. I just can't have a game without BIG cities with WLTK. All other wonders are secondary to those.

Second: ToA helps in early wars. Free temple means fast expansion, free culture means less flips, if only it wasn't SOOO expensive! And worse, it expires very soon. Worse than worst, it expires with Monotheism, so right before you can start building cathedrals (to take full (duh! no comments)) advantage of Sistine, you find you also have to build temples everywhere. I agree with ToE, Hoover, all the other good wonders mentioned here. But for me, those mentioned above are the name of the game.
I try to build Shakespeare in my most productive city, since that's where I'll build Military Academy, and it can have even more people and be more productive! Add Iron Works when possible, and you get the picture

 

[Taras Bulba]

ToA helps in early wars... Worse than worst, it expires with Monotheism

meep- Temple of Artemis expires at Education.... which is still bad... just not that bad

 

[Diviner]

JSBach and Sistine all the way!!

clearly the best happiness wonders. i also try to build both and usually succeeded in.. unless i play on emperor ^^

the interesting question is which one is more powerful?

ToA helps...

never in anything ToA costs 500, usually built by the time you arrive to the middle ages, so expansion is over. expires very soon.

HG costs 300, usually built before ToA, have almost the same effect, and expires in the IA. quess which one is better?

ToA is a strong competitor for the 'most useless wonder' imo.. if it would cost 300, it would be finally a powerful AA wonder, but still these quick-obsoleting wonders are not worth the effort really.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

the interesting question is which one is more powerful?

JS Bach's is better.

The Sistine Chapel is (together with the Oracle) the worst wonder of them all, a total rip-off. The reason for this is twofold:

First, you get nothing by building Sistine's alone. To get something out of it you will still need the Cathedral's @ 160 shields each. And 160 shields are the equivalent of two haldbuilt knights, IOW a whole lot.

Secondly, you get nothing by building a single Cathedral. To get something out of this improvement you need a coverage for all your core cities. Only then can you lower the lux slider.

Assuming you have 10 core cities that makes 1,600 shields in addition to the 600 shields for the wonder. As I said, A total rip-off.


JS Bach's however does not have any such expensive strings attached. It just works. In your core, in corrupt territory, in just captured cities. Build it and you can immediately lower the lux slider and grow slightly larger scientist farms. Great wonder.