unusual positioning

[kaskavel]

Emperor, no barbs. All map features random.

There are some distinct features here.
1. LOT of land to settle fast.
2. Good land. And then lot of bad land SE.
3. NO food bonuses.
I need a lot of settlers and workers. I will expand OCN-style to grab space, then fill in more cities in-between. How should I handle this? I think I will go with multiple granaries in places I have forests to chop and go with barracks in the rest. Or something else?

 

[justanick]

I need a lot of settlers and workers.

Yes.

I will expand OCN-style to grab space, then fill in more cities in-between.

You mean OCP: Optimal City Placement.

I might prefer to decide on a settling pattern and settle closer to the capital first, then outwards. Is your approach better? It is better, if you need to compete for territory soon. But so far there is little indication for that.

I think I will go with multiple granaries in places I have forests to chop and go with barracks in the rest. Or something else?

Well, you donnot need barracks early on. That can wait till after the last settlers have been built, possibly till leaving despotism. The early barracks in Delhi and the spearman were a mistake. Cheap 3/3 warriors rule the early game. They provide exploration and military police.

You will need many aqueducts. You should build (at least) 2 cities at the inland see with the fish, possibly 4 und 6 from it. Since there no aqueducts are required, a granary makes sense there. The fish gives 4 food after despotism and 3 in despotism. This inland see is a high priority.

Getting water through the plains will take quite some worker turns. Prior to irrigation the plains are not useful and your priorities need to match this.

 

[kaskavel]

Because all my cities are growing slowly at +2 food and my production is high, I find it difficult to keep building warriors in the meantime. I am ending up with too many of them....Delhi for example needs 10 rounds (WITH a granary) for a 2 population growth a settler needs and gets an average of 8 shields per turn in the same time for a total of 80 shields. What am I supposed to build with the rest 50 shields? Five warriors per settler? Arrange for the settler to be built when cities hit size 3? The opposite? Let the cities grow at 10 shields per turn? Without the granary, the spare shields even double up.
Usualy, I build a granary in 2-3 cities that get food bonuses, let them do their job and build warriors and occasional workers in the rest. But here I can not follow this pattern. I need multiple cities to build workers/settlers and this confuses me about the granaries.

 

[kaskavel]

You will need many aqueducts. You should build (at least) 2 cities at the inland see with the fish, possibly 4 und 6 from it. Since there no aqueducts are required, a granary makes sense there. The fish gives 4 food after despotism and 3 in despotism. This inland see is a high priority.

Getting water through the plains will take quite some worker turns. Prior to irrigation the plains are not useful and your priorities need to match this.

Correct. This also connects the incense. The fish may offer a double city 4-round growth (+2.5 food per city on average by switching the fish...pfff...too much micromanaging). The workers will then spread irrigation in three directions.

 

[justanick]

Because all my cities are growing slowly at +2 food and my production is high, I find it difficult to keep building warriors in the meantime. I am ending up with too many of them....

Usually having too many warriors is unlikely to occur. If your goal is 20 towns with 2 military police each that is 40 3/3 warriors. The available land does suggest space for more than 20 towns.

Delhi for example needs 10 rounds (WITH a granary) for a 2 population growth a settler needs and gets an average of 8 shields per turn in the same time for a total of 80 shields. What am I supposed to build with the rest 50 shields? Five warriors per settler?

For a while that may very well be acceptable. Lesser towns may use turns with 1 shield for wealth to finance the maintenance of granaries.

Losses due to rounding may imply 4 turns per settler and 2 turns per warrior, thus only 3 warriors per settler and thus within free unit support of 4 per town founded per settler.

Still, if we take your 50 excess shields per settler for granted this does of course change the balance significantly in favour of barracks. But maybe not enough while there is no visible military threat.

Arrange for the settler to be built when cities hit size 3?

This may be a good idea in a situation suggested by the sceenshot. The earlier you finish a settler, the earlier you found a town, the higher your net output of food.

One approach to deal with the issue is to be strangely economical with workers turns. Road tiles, but mine them only if that effort is warranted in the short run.

Usualy, I build a granary in 2-3 cities that get food bonuses, let them do their job and build warriors and occasional workers in the rest. But here I can not follow this pattern.

Well, technically 2 towns at the lake do met the criteria. But i do see your point.

It can occasionally make sense to build a granary after a town has built its first (or possibly fourth or fifth) settler. The idea is to share improved tiles with the capital. You need to strike some kind of balance that does end up making sense. This tends to imply more than 3 granaries in total, preferably where food is high and corruption is low.

 

[justanick]

The fish may offer a double city 4-round growth (+2.5 food per city on average by switching the fish...pfff...too much micromanaging).

The micromanaging of smaller empires with less than 100 utilized tiles tends to consume not that much time. It is the later phases of the game when the ratio of input to impacts is less favourable.

 

[kaskavel]

Usually having too many warriors is unlikely to occur. If your goal is 20 towns with 2 military police each that is 40 3/3 warriors. The available land does suggest space for more than 20 towns.

For a while that may very well be acceptable. Lesser towns may use turns with 1 shield for wealth to finance the maintenance of granaries.

Losses due to rounding may imply 4 turns per settler and 2 turns per warrior, thus only 3 warriors per settler and thus within free unit support of 4 per town founded per settler.

Still, if we take your 50 excess shields per settler for granted this does of course change the balance significantly in favour of barracks. But maybe not enough while there is no visible military threat.

I moved on and indeed, you are right to call it "unlickely to occur", it did occur, but it is not much different from more typical situations. It may have seemed to me at first that I will end up overproducing warriors, but that was the capital and closest cities. After those couple of capital buildings, corruption reduced the number of "re-growing" spare shields. The warriors end up finding spots to do MP stuff. At that point I did have to stop only on one or two occasions in order to build a barracks or a granary but no more.

This may be a good idea in a situation suggested by the sceenshot. The earlier you finish a settler, the earlier you found a town, the higher your net output of food.

One approach to deal with the issue is to be strangely economical with workers turns. Road tiles, but mine them only if that effort is warranted in the short run.

Yes, this is happening in this game, because multiple cities drop out settlers and workers all the time.

 

[tenny]

3. NO food bonuses

I might be mistaken, but it looks like game between Bombay and Delhi

I need a lot of settlers and workers. I will expand OCN-style to grab space, then fill in more cities in-between. How should I handle this? I think I will go with multiple granaries in places I have forests to chop and go with barracks in the rest. Or something else?

I would not build granaries. But build more settlements to work all the river tiles fast. If roaded, they give +2 commerce. If I remember correctly, you are not playing with Philosophy giving bonus tech. However, the money is still important to get out of Despotism. Out of despotism, you can get +4 fpt in the cities.

I need multiple cities to build workers/settlers and this confuses me about the granaries.

Don't bother too much with granaries. However, you are building not enough workers. Build a worker first in each city. The amount of worker moves needed to improve every tile is a important factor in reaching max city size. Also, it will be easier to get +4fpt in all cities and the commerce bonus once you reach Republic (or monarchy).

The reason not to bother with granaries to much for expansion is because there are only so many good city places, and you are not only competing with your opponents, but basically your cities are also competing against each other to build settlers to found the cities. You are basically slowing down your settling and growth of closer, low-corruption cities in the core for higher-corruption cities far away.

The cities that are building granaries right now are not operational before the capital has put out two more settlers. So they will "compete" against 5 different cities, of one which will have a granary at that point.
A city with a granary will make a 2 fpt city grow twice as fast, effectively creating a 4 fpt city. Founding another city will give you 2 cities with 4 combined fpt. Howevery, the city does not cost maintenence, and provides shields, commerce, unit support, and more territory as well as a higher max population (growth potential) and happy citizens.

 

[kaskavel]

I might be mistaken, but it looks like game between Bombay and Delhi

Yes, I do not really mean there are no food bonuses on the map. Just that they are so few +1s spread appart, that creating a settler factory is not an option and I need to build settlers in multiple cities.

I would not build granaries. But build more settlements to work all the river tiles fast. If roaded, they give +2 commerce. If I remember correctly, you are not playing with Philosophy giving bonus tech. However, the money is still important to get out of Despotism. Out of despotism, you can get +4 fpt in the cities.


Don't bother too much with granaries. However, you are building not enough workers. Build a worker first in each city. The amount of worker moves needed to improve every tile is a important factor in reaching max city size. Also, it will be easier to get +4fpt in all cities and the commerce bonus once you reach Republic (or monarchy).

The reason not to bother with granaries to much for expansion is because there are only so many good city places, and you are not only competing with your opponents, but basically your cities are also competing against each other to build settlers to found the cities. You are basically slowing down your settling and growth of closer, low-corruption cities in the core for higher-corruption cities far away.

The cities that are building granaries right now are not operational before the capital has put out two more settlers. So they will "compete" against 5 different cities, of one which will have a granary at that point.
A city with a granary will make a 2 fpt city grow twice as fast, effectively creating a 4 fpt city. Founding another city will give you 2 cities with 4 combined fpt. Howevery, the city does not cost maintenence, and provides shields, commerce, unit support, and more territory as well as a higher max population (growth potential) and happy citizens.

You seem correct. I regretted building a lot of granaries after the snap was taken.

 

[justanick]

I might be mistaken, but it looks like game between Bombay and Delhi

Once chopped and irrigated that is a good tile for growth in despotism.

I would not build granaries. But build more settlements to work all the river tiles fast. If roaded, they give +2 commerce.

That may be OK in the short run, albeit cities utilizing the game and the fish should get granaries.

Don't bother too much with granaries. However, you are building not enough workers. Build a worker first in each city.

It can be sensible to build a granary before a worker. In the very early game only around 70% of used tiles being properly improved can be acceptable. If however you end up with an average of ~1.5 unimproved used tiles per town, then in all likelyhood you had underprioritized workers. In the screenshot there are 6 tiles that are (partially) improved and 6 population points needing such tiles. Still, there is a mismatch. A focus on tiles very near to the capital is preferable in the very early game.

You want to minimize the amount of turns it takes to get to size 12(or at least 10) with all tiles properly improved. Assuming that corruption is low and production is reasonanly high, granaries suit that goal reasonably well. They are no miracle solution, but usually you are better off with them than without. Whether worker first or a granary before the worker is preferable does depend on circumstances.

The game at Bombay should be shared with 3 cities and the fish by 2 or 3 cities. The later might be close, but that is 5 to 6 cities that get a granary with only Bombay needing an aqueduct. But corruption at Bombay is low, so that is acceptable.

With hindsight Delhi should probably have produced a granary first(assuming tech allows it, else a settler first is the next best thing), then a settler for game-2-3, then a settler for game-4, then a settler for fish-4, then a settler for fish-6 and then possibly a settler for fish-8. All those 5 to 6 cities should get a granary eventually with the exact order being uncertain. The rest of the cities with access to the green tiles should also be founded soon as they have acceptable growth and acceptable corruption. They may however not (necessarily) get a granary. For them something like worker, warrior, aqueduct might work. The production of the warrior might be delegated elsewhere if technology and other circumstances make that reasonable. Also they may build a settler if that leads to a better outcome overall.

 

[Spoonwood]

For the four cities in that screenshot, for sure I would have built a granary. Probably as the first build. If there exists a lot of land, granaries make sense. They speed up settler AND worker production afterwards.