What are your thoughts on the Granary?

[darkace77450]

I think I've developed a bad habit with these things. Every time I found a new city this thing finds itself 1st or 2nd in my queue of city projects, and I'm not sure I could make the case for why that's a good idea.

My first few games I found myself building early monuments and granaries for the quicker border expansion and population growth, respectively. As I got more experienced at the game I naturally started refining my technique to improve my play. But for some reason I haven't looked into the cost/benefit analysis of an early Granary (until now).

The extra housing is useful, obviously, but it's not an immediate priority for any well-placed city. If - for whatever reason - I found a city without access to water of any kind then sure, this thing should go up asap. I can see the case being made for even coastal cities to get one sooner than later to bring their housing on par with river-adjacent cities without having to build an Aqueduct.

But I can't help but feel I shouldn't be building these in river-adjacent cities until I need to (if at all). Surely an extra working slapping down tile improvements would pay more dividends in the short, intermediate, and long runs than getting +1 food and two extra housing before I'm near the housing limit. But I digress.

If you guys have any thoughts about if and when Granaries should be built then you're welcome to share them here. If you want to expand the conversation to include all the City Center buildings then feel free to do so.

 

[Jarms48]

Granaries are normally the first building I build/buy in coastal cities, when it comes to cities with access to freshwater I'll happily delay it a little bit; generally when I get to about 2 population below the housing cap.

 

[KmDubya]

I usually wait until I get to the housing cap unless it is a really food poor high production city. I tend to build watermills first, especially if they have rice or wheat. I also pretty much only settle on rivers or coast if there are massive quantities of sea resources.

 

[The Highwayman]

I build granaries as needed, usually when a city is 1 population below the housing cap. By this time, it usually only takes a couple of turns to hammer them out. I build monuments in every city, and it's typically first in the build order (except for the capital of course, or I need an aqueduct ASAP). Water mills are built wherever there is wheat/rice, but I build it whenever I'm in between high priority builds like builders, districts/buildings. Sewers never get built as they don't seem cost effective.

 

[Captain Potato]

The main question you want to ask yourself is: "will the granary/water mill/sewer give me more than a worker?

Workers typically give +1 food or production and 0.5 housing per charge, so you can compare them directly whenever there are (or are soon to be) unimproved tiles being worked. +3 food and +1.5 housing is very clearly better than +1 food and +2 housing.

 

[Bluetooth]

Yes, I always start by building Monuments and Granaries, in that order and in every new City. Only one exception from this and that’s in my Capital. In my Capital I usually build them much later as I have other priorities in the early stage of the game.

 

[joncnunn]

On the Granary in Civ VI for cities that aren't the capital; if the city isn't along a river, it's generally the first build due to the need to stay two ahead of the housing capacity to not waste any food with being at "only" plus one surplus and having a 50% cut in food growth.
If it has a river, then unless playing Rome my order would be Monument followed by Granary and then a builder (unless another city built one). (If playing Rome which has a free Monument I'd build a Builder followed by a Granary)

 

[Ornen]

The main question you want to ask yourself is: "will the granary/water mill/sewer give me more than a worker?

Workers typically give +1 food or production and 0.5 housing per charge, so you can compare them directly whenever there are (or are soon to be) unimproved tiles being worked. +3 food and +1.5 housing is very clearly better than +1 food and +2 housing.

Not really, imo. Often housing, not food, is the limiting factor. And that's a +3 food you might not be ready to work anyway. I think it's very circumstantial, not very clear, in this case.

 

[Victoria]

To me it is a matter of focus.
I want one city to have lots of districts so internal trade routes work well, so this city gets a granary before growth slows.
For the rest... Not initially as I want as many cities before turn 100 as I can.
I am starting to wam to the idea of just chopping to grow as it is faster and more efficient. In that way much build time is saved.... No granaries.

 

[gimper42]

I find myself with a builder in the queue first in my new cities fairly often. Unless the city lacks access to fresh water, then it gets a granary first.

 

[Kelmort83]

If I use my capital to spam Settler, I will build or buy a Granary right after completing Pottery.

 

[A+ombomb]

It's usually better to focus on districts than granaries. Use intuition to determine when a granary is better.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Not really, imo. Often housing, not food, is the limiting factor. And that's a +3 food you might not be ready to work anyway. I think it's very circumstantial, not very clear, in this case.

Many improvements give housing, including unworked farms.

For most of the game so much power comes from districts that you're fishing for break points there (4, 7, 10 especially). A granary can make sense in tundra/desert type environments, when worker costs have gotten large, or even in high production coastal cities that need the housing but don't have as many useful tiles as others.

They're also reasonable in cities with lots of production tiles to work directly but not a lot of food, since they yield food w/o working a tile.

This isn't like civ 4 where you could whip pop and they drastically improved early growth rate, making them double as top-tier production and economy buildings (IE they were too obvious a choice in civ 4 most cases). They are not a consistent priority build in early cities and building them instead of workers, military units, settlers, or districts can easily be a mathematically traceable misplay in terms of yield generated.

It's usually better to focus on districts than granaries. Use intuition to determine when a granary is better.

It's better to use math, or even "copy what good players do". Constantly relying on intuition is a good way to be perma-prince or eternally-emperor etc if one doesn't already have a good sense for the tradeoffs .

I find myself with a builder in the queue first in my new cities fairly often. Unless the city lacks access to fresh water, then it gets a granary first.

If you can pull it off (hard for early cities), it is more efficient to have builder(s) ready/built from other cities so that this new city can start growing fast and start working on districts immediately. That way you don't have the front-loaded cost of making a builder while working unimproved tiles, and can immediately improve the city's productivity and housing. The only higher yield option is having "enough" (for situation) military units, which can frequently be the strongest investment of all before you have enough/too many.

 

[gimper42]

If you can pull it off (hard for early cities), it is more efficient to have builder(s) ready/built from other cities so that this new city can start growing fast and start working on districts immediately.

Agree 100%. But, as you mentioned, not always easy to accomplish with those first few expansions.

 

[A+ombomb]

It's better to use math, or even "copy what good players do". Constantly relying on intuition is a good way to be perma-prince or eternally-emperor etc if one doesn't already have a good sense for the tradeoffs .

I consistently beat the highest difficulty AI, and win 80% of my multiplayer ffa NQ games. But perhaps you are correct about one thing - intuition is different for different people, and not everyone can rely on their intuition to be accurate.

The primary rationale behind districts > granaries, is that districts give more yields to trade routes. So you want to aim for a basis of 2-3 cities with 7 pop districts asap, to get trade routes off running. The granary is essentially good for the same purpose - allowing a city to be larger for more districts, and thus better trade routes. The district yields and building yields themselves aren't the whole story of why building districts is good. This is also why commercial hubs are among the very best districts early - more trade routes.

Hitting a trade route with 2 food / 2 production, which is a fairly reasonable task, is the equivalent of 1-1.5 populations worth of output, on the average, but without the overhead need of a population to run it. So you can add 2 food (cost in food of a population) and some amount of amenity/housing gain to the 2food/2production when comparing how good it is - which is to say it's very very good.

 

[ShinigamiKenji]

I use Granaries when my city has no fresh water, or I'm aiming at 7 pop faster for a new district. Otherwise I delay it in favor ofmore important stuff.