Why granaries don't work

[Bamspeedy]

Well, yeah it would take 12 turns for a city going from size 1-2, but as you grow faster when you get to pop 3+, you'll be picking up more shields (unless the 3rd or 4th citizen doesn't have any shield tiles to use-which is not likely). So you will be slowly growing in size and probably eventually fluctuate in population size from 4-2 instead of 3-1 all the time.

I think if you only had 1 cattle nearby, then mining the cattle and then squeezing in a granary between the first and second settlers would be the best. Let's you build a few warriors/scouts, get the first settler out right away, then build the granary and it should be done before you get to size 3, so the second settler would only be delayed a few turns. And that is only 2 turns slower than irrigating it and building the granary, but allows you more of that early production (when you are at size 1).

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by vulture
If we add a granary to the mix, then it takes 8 turns to get the food, but still 12 turns to generate enough shields, so it takes 12 turns to generate a settler.

No, because your city will be working the higher-shield squares more often (and/or grow larger).

Obviously I'm ignoring the effects of mining the grasslands to generate more shields here.

There is the option of building a second Worker first, before anything else. You will catch up because thanks to the extra mines and irrigation the Granary (or the Settler, as the case may be) will be finished in less turns, and at the same time you will have roads finished to the next city location where you are also ready to start improving the land.

It all depends on how much work the original city location requires.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by Ribannah
There is the option of building a second Worker first, before anything else. You will catch up because thanks to the extra mines and irrigation the Granary (or the Settler, as the case may be) will be finished in less turns, and at the same time you will have roads finished to the next city location where you are also ready to start improving the land.

It all depends on how much work the original city location requires.

Ribannah,

This will take you quite awhile to get your first settler out. Have you tried this, and are you sure you are getting your moneys worth out of that worker and the granary. It seems like the other nations will already have 3-4 cities when you get around to your second.

[Ribannah]

Yes, I have tried this. In almost all cases (crowded maps being the main exception) the Worker is definitely worth it. I typically catch up in empire size around 2550 BC and at that time I still have the extra Worker and double the tile improvements.

Whether the Granary is worth it, too, depends on the situation much like without the second Worker.

[DuncanK]

Ribannah,

How crowded is the exception? Four\Five players on a standard map? I'm not trying to be sarcastic. I'm just trying to get a feel for when I might want to try this strategy.

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by DuncanK
Ribannah,

How crowded is the exception? Four\Five players on a standard map?

Uh, there are typically 8 players on a standard map. A scenario of your description would be quite empty indeed.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by DuncanK
How crowded is the exception?

When there is the chance that by the time you want to found your third city, there is no more room.

[nbarclay]

It seems like a lot of the analysis and arguing here is in terms of one city with a granary or two without. But in reality, the more common situation is that the granary staggers things so part of the time you're one city short with a granary but part of the time you have two cities either way. That's what tends to tip the balance and make granaries worthwhile (especially for industrious civs, since they can get more production faster): you end up only part of a settler behind, not a full settler behind, but you get a population effect comparable to a full city's extra food production.

I tend to go after granaries in my earliest cities (especially my capital and any high-food city nearby) but then skip them until around the time I build aqueducts. The granary cities do a large percentage of my settler building, and the others focus their efforts elsewhere. With a good starting position, it's not rare for me to out-REX AIs on Emperor level (although my experience base with PtW is relatively limited).

By the way, as long as they have decent production, high-food cities are the ones that need granaries most in the early game. The basic effect of granaries is roughly equivalent to doubling a city's food surplus per turn. A city with a surplus of two food per turn gets the equivalent of an extra two food per turn with a granary. But a city with a surplus of five food per turn gets the equivalent of an extra five food per turn with a granary. Which is a better investment, 60 shields for the equivalent of two extra food per turn or 60 shields for the equivalent of five extra food per turn? Of course once a high-food city gets its granary, it may not get a chance to build anything but settlers and/or workers until after you're finished REXing, but there are worse fates in life than having lots of settlers and workers.

Nathan

[DuncanK]

Nathan,

It you have a square that produces 4 food and no sheilds you can produce nothing but settlers without a granary.

[ducki]

Unless that's floodplain, I'd rather have a square produce both shields and food, partly just to have balance, as shields are harder to come by in the early game.

[DaveMcW]

DuncanK, I already went over that in my big math post.

It is better to make nothing but 6-turn settlers using a granary instead of nothing but 10-turn settlers without a granary. If you don't have the shields to keep up with growth just raise the luxuries a bit and let the city grow until you do.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by DuncanK
Nathan,

It you have a square that produces 4 food and no sheilds you can produce nothing but settlers without a granary.

I hadn't analyzed it before, but if the only food bonus within a city radius is an irrigated wheat, a granary seems to be roughly a break-even proposition - or a losing one if you slow down settling nearby land that has another food bonus. That's due to a combination of three factors. (1) There's a major loss due to rounding with a granary but not without (the granary only gives a 66% effective increase in food instead of 100%). (2) With only one food bonus tile, the city can build its settler and drop back to size 1 without losing any of its growth rate. And (3) not enough production is available to get the granary finished quickly. A cow tile with no grasslands with shields around faces the same basic problems.

If your capital can get a surplus of five food and (simultaneously) at least seven production at size 5 and eight at size six, it's crazy not to build a granary there. In other cases, a lot more depends on the specific situation because happiness issues and availability of food bonuses elsewhere can both affect what choice is optimal. (Capitals get a little extra gold, so using the luxury slider to quell discontent in them is more efficient than in most other places.)

Nathan

[Bamspeedy]

Yes, use the luxury rate. As long as you'll get the 30 shields before hitting size 7, you'll be ok. At size 7, the granary gets emptied, so you don't want that. You'll be ok if you produce the settler at the same time you would hit size 7, just don't spend one full turn at size 7.

Typically for a +5 food city you'll spend 2 turns at size 5, and 2 turns at size 6. So you'll need 7 shields/turn at size 5, and 8 shields/turn at size 6. You need 2 bonus resources or wheat on floodplains for this. The problem with floodplains, though is that there is usually nothing but plains/desert around so you may have problems getting the shields (since trying to get a 2-shield tile like forests will slow down your growth).

A +4 food city just needs an average of 5 shields/turn (irrigated cattle on grassland, city center tile, 1 bonus grassland, and 1 more bonus grassland or a mined regular grassland). If you have wheat on grassland and you irrigate it, you just need 2 mined bonus grassland tiles.
Food is harder to come by in the early game, not shields, because there fewer tiles you can irrigate to actually get a benefit from.

Building a worker first: I would only think about doing this if I had a bonus resource on grassland and I irrigate it and if I'm a non-industrious civ. If you irrigate the resource on grassland you'll grow every 5 turns (without a granary), so building the worker puts you behind by 5 turns. Cutting a forest would be more viable with 2 workers, so that would help it get caught up if chopping the forest for a granary. It really does depend on terrain. On some starts the extra worker only speeds up the granary by 1 turn, so you are now 4 turns behind instead of 5. So then it really depends on what the other cities can do with the extra tile improvements. Can your first few cities get enough of a benefit from the improved tiles to make up for being built 4-5 turns later? Having more roads in place will help some cities actually be settled a little earlier, so that will help a little bit. I still don't feel comfortable doing this. I may test it further.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by DaveMcW
DuncanK, I already went over that in my big math post.

It is better to make nothing but 6-turn settlers using a granary instead of nothing but 10-turn settlers without a granary. If you don't have the shields to keep up with growth just raise the luxuries a bit and let the city grow until you do.

With a low production rate, the extra time involved in building the granary and then the settler puts you essentially a full city behind. Even if the second city has no food bonuses, the food advantage of the granary over the second city is only about 10%, so you won't catch up in total number of cities settled until at least somewhere around tenth city. That's not much better than a breakeven proposition at best unless the map is sparsely populated (although the granary does leave a bigger, more productive city behind at that point). Worse, for whatever duration the earlier second city does offer an extra city with a food bonus, overall population growth is actually higher with the extra city than with the granary. And then there's the granary's upkeep cost and probably gold for the luxury slider along the way.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by nbarclay
Even if the second city has no food bonuses, the food advantage of the granary over the second city is only about 10%

The way to count how much you're behind (better: how much you have invested) is not by food or cities, but by the number of turns. Let's say the first Settler you build is completed 8 turns later than without the granary, then the second one arrives 4 turns later, and on average you have caught up in empire size when your capital produces its 5th Settler 8 turns ahead, unless your second city is also a Settler factory. In that case there is a new decision tree where you might choose to invest further, and there is the (then usually better) option of building one Settler before the Granary, too.

There are variations where your capital alternates between building a Warrior and a Settler, while the other cities start with Temples or Workers and don't need to help with the police force.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Ribannah


The way to count how much you're behind (better: how much you have invested) is not by food or cities, but by the number of turns. Let's say the first Settler you build is completed 8 turns later than without the granary, then the second one arrives 4 turns later, and on average you have caught up in empire size when your capital produces its 5th Settler 8 turns ahead, unless your second city is also a Settler factory. In that case there is a new decision tree where you might choose to invest further, and there is the (then usually better) option of building one Settler before the Granary, too.

A city doesn't have to be a settler factory to build settlers when it gets a chance. Also, one big problem with measuring in turns is that if a player wants new cities to be productive, it's necessary to build workers as well as settlers, but the exact order (at least for me) tends to be very arbitrary.

Actually, it occurs to me that I should have factored the need for workers into my analysis. Since both settlers and workers use up population points, the need for workers would tend to bring down the number of cities before the granary starts to pay off by a little bit.

Nathan

[joncnunn]

Cities working flood plains have to be monitored carefully in early game, they'll occansionly be struck be disease, reducing their population.

In addiion, flood plains produce no shields, and so those cities may have a shield problem producing a Granery.

Plains are actualy excelent if you have a worker devoted to irrigating it.

[DuncanK]

The good thing about the floodplains with a special resource is that they grow from 1 so very quikly. You can mine and road the desert around it. The growth with slow down as the city gets bigger, but it doesn't stay at 1 or 2 for very long, so its very productive.

I'm going to try building granaries in high food producing cities again. Have other people tried that who haven't posted yet? Did they get good results?

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by joncnunn
In addiion, flood plains produce no shields, and so those cities may have a shield problem producing a Granery.

If you have enough food, you can usually pop-rush fairly successfully.

[Ribannah]

Yep. And mine the normal plains that surround them, don't irrigate those.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by nbarclay
It seems like a lot of the analysis and arguing here is in terms of one city with a granary or two without. But in reality, the more common situation is that the granary staggers things so part of the time you're one city short with a granary but part of the time you have two cities either way. That's what tends to tip the balance and make granaries worthwhile (especially for industrious civs, since they can get more production faster): you end up only part of a settler behind, not a full settler behind, but you get a population effect comparable to a full city's extra food production.

I tend to go after granaries in my earliest cities (especially my capital and any high-food city nearby) but then skip them until around the time I build aqueducts. The granary cities do a large percentage of my settler building, and the others focus their efforts elsewhere. With a good starting position, it's not rare for me to out-REX AIs on Emperor level (although my experience base with PtW is relatively limited).

By the way, as long as they have decent production, high-food cities are the ones that need granaries most in the early game. The basic effect of granaries is roughly equivalent to doubling a city's food surplus per turn. A city with a surplus of two food per turn gets the equivalent of an extra two food per turn with a granary. But a city with a surplus of five food per turn gets the equivalent of an extra five food per turn with a granary. Which is a better investment, 60 shields for the equivalent of two extra food per turn or 60 shields for the equivalent of five extra food per turn? Of course once a high-food city gets its granary, it may not get a chance to build anything but settlers and/or workers until after you're finished REXing, but there are worse fates in life than having lots of settlers and workers.

Nathan

I tried this out last night and it worked pretty good. I'm not fully convinced, but I'm going to try it some more. Thanx

[realpolitic]

Originally posted by Zachriel

If you have enough food, you can usually pop-rush fairly successfully.

If the population is high enough the city often produces too many shields to make poprushing the right chioce.

[Ribannah]

That depends on whether you have enough of the surrounding terrain improved. I tend to have plenty of Workers in my games, so I hardly rush anything in the early game. But it's different if you only have a few Workers.

[nbarclay]

Earlier in this thread, the question came up of whether granaries are good only for industrious civs. At the time, I wasn't quite sure, but after playing the AU 203 game into the early industrial era, I have an answer. (Note: the remainder of this post has some "spoiler" information on that game, although nothing too serious.) One other caveat: I was playing using a version of the "Apolyton University Mod" that had an effect of reducing corruption under despotism. I don't know how many of my granaries wouldn't have worked without that (since it takes a certain amount of production to build one without seriously compromising settler production), but the rules difference certainly would not have affected the granary in the capital.

In that game, Germany starts on a river with a few grassland with shield tiles available but no food bonuses. My initial build queue was 3 warriors, a settler, and then a granary to start cranking out additional settlers (with occasional workers thrown in, and sometimes with something in between to avoid wasting shields). By that time, my worker was in a position to start improving tiles for my second city, so I had that one build a granary as its first thing. My third city overlapped the first enough that it could share mined grassland with shield tiles with it, so I had it build a granary before anything else too. By the time I was finished with the REXing phase, I had granaries in all seven of my main core cities, and that (plus a serious lack of competition for territory in my part of the world) let me compete with even the biggest of the AIs in the REXing race on Emperor level in spite of a total absence of food bonuses. There's a screenshot of my empire in the AU 203 Results and Spoilers thread (page 5 with my settings, but it would be a higher number with default settings for number of messages per page) if anyone wants to look at it. One catch: to pull it off, I had to take a major gamble that none of the AIs would take a notion to attack while I was so busy REXing that I had almost no military, but I learned from Aeson that if you're big enough, you can impress the AIs with your power even without any military units to speak of.

If anyone thinks they can get farther without granaries (and without a settler from a hut; my only hut yielded barbs), I dare you to try. (And feel free to try more than once if your AI opponents prove more hostile than mine did, although if you refuse to pay tribute, the consequences are on your own head.) Remember that you need to play the AU Mod version on Emperor if you want an apples-to-apples comparison with my game.

Nathan

[Dominae]

Nathan, your REXing in AU203 was impressive indeed (but I expect no less from our Chief Economist!). A couple of points, though:

1. Did you block the AIs with military units along the chokepoints? In my game I basically put lines in the sand and expanded up to them. This facilitated my claiming of land greatly (SPOILER: although the English would never have gone far, the Russians could easily have taken the Furs, had I not blocked them).

2. The abundance Luxuries surely helped the Granary plan. Without access to so many so early, either research (lux slider) or production (military police) would have taken a major hit.

3. I'm thinking the effect of the reduced corruption in AU mod 1.14 was really quite drastic. I'm not sure if "Granary REX" would have been so successful for a non-Industrious civ under the normal rules. The fact that your seven core cities were such REX giants sounds odd compared to normal games (especially with no Food bonuses). Unless you did something new and secret that you're telling us about, I think this can be attributed to the reduced corruption.

4. With 2 and 3 above, I'm basically arguing that your game may not be knock-down proof that "Granary REX" is always best, for Industrious and non-Industrious civs alike. I started a Deity game recently (with the Carthaginians) and managed to match the AI in expansion using no Granaries (not easy when they start with an extra Settler). My capital had 2 Game resources on Forests over Grasslands. I find it interesting that the Granary question is so debatable.


Dominae

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Dominae
Nathan, your REXing in AU203 was impressive indeed (but I expect no less from our Chief Economist!). A couple of points, though:

1. Did you block the AIs with military units along the chokepoints? In my game I basically put lines in the sand and expanded up to them. This facilitated my claiming of land greatly (SPOILER: although the English would never have gone far, the Russians could easily have taken the Furs, had I not blocked them).

I never had enough military units for blockade tactics. Basically, once I got my first eight cities or so (all the good land reasonably close to my capital), I sent settlers with a warrior escort each (almost my entire military at the time) down to set up blockades. On the English side, one English settler slipped through while the blockade was only half finished, but other of my settlers grabbed the good land in the area and left a coastal desert as the best land the English settler could find. I even took advantage of the AI's dislike for tight city spacing to build a couple more cities beside and beyond the original blockade location. On the Russian side, I got lucky in that Rome somehow crossed the bottom of the continent (there's a thin strip of land connecting the two sides of an inverted upside-down Y, for those who haven't seen the map) and captured Russia's cities coming up the Russian leg. Had that (or some other military interference) not happened, Russia would almost certainly have settled at least a little farther north before my settlers got in place to put a cultural border in the way. Incidentally, I eventually reached a point where I was averaging better than a settler every two turns empire-wide, so it didn't take long to fill in the gaps behind my original blockading settlers.

2. The abundance Luxuries surely helped the Granary plan. Without access to so many so early, either research (lux slider) or production (military police) would have taken a major hit.

True. Actually, with no food bonuses and good production, the need for MPs or using the luxury slider isn't much greater with granaries than wthout. (The times I let cities grow past size 3 were almost invariably a matter of convenience rather than necessity.) But granaries do get in the way of having room for MPs between settlers in the build queue.

3. I'm thinking the effect of the reduced corruption in AU mod 1.14 was really quite drastic. I'm not sure if "Granary REX" would have been so successful for a non-Industrious civ under the normal rules. The fact that your seven core cities were such REX giants sounds odd compared to normal games (especially with no Food bonuses). Unless you did something new and secret that you're telling us about, I think this can be attributed to the reduced corruption.

The big question is how many of the cities could have had the production for granaries under standard rules. I very likely would have been stuck at only three granaries instead of the seven I ended up with, but having granaries in those three would definitely have made a difference.

4. With 2 and 3 above, I'm basically arguing that your game may not be knock-down proof that "Granary REX" is always best, for Industrious and non-Industrious civs alike. I started a Deity game recently (with the Carthaginians) and managed to match the AI in expansion using no Granaries (not easy when they start with an extra Settler). My capital had 2 Game resources on Forests over Grasslands. I find it interesting that the Granary question is so debatable.

First of all, I give no advice for how to handle Deity. I've tried it a few times (with little success and no victories), but from my experience and from what I've read, there is simply no room on Deity for the kind of game I enjoy. I'm too much of a builder, enjoy competing in the tech race as more or less an equal participant too much, and hate razing too much.

I also definitely would not say that a Granary REX is always the best approach. There's a lot of skill involved in reading a map and picking a playing style that's well suited to that map. But in a game like AU 203 where there are huge amounts of land between you and the nearest AI, and at least on any level below Deity, granary-boosted REXing can be an extremely powerful strategy (especially for those whose inclination is more toward building than toward warmongering). And more generally, unless you're setting up an early archer rush (in which case archers possibly preceded by barracks may need to take precedence), it's hard to go wrong building at least a granary in the capital (very possibly after the first settler) if you have halfway decent production and can get a hold of Pottery early. (Whether it's worth researching Pottery yourself perhaps just for one granary is more debatable.)

Nathan

[Dominae]

Originally posted by nbarclay
True. Actually, with no food bonuses and good production, the need for MPs or using the luxury slider isn't much greater with granaries than wthout. (The times I let cities grow past size 3 were almost invariably a matter of convenience rather than necessity.) But granaries do get in the way of having room for MPs between settlers in the build queue.

Yes. I figured I wanted some Vet. Spearmen that would upgrade through the ages, so I built early Barracks. In retrospect this hurt my expansion considerably. Concerning your point about the Luxury slider, do not forget (AU203 SPOILER!) that there is an abundance of bonus Grassland tiles and Forest around the capital, which greatly helps keep pop down.

The big question is how many of the cities could have had the production for granaries under standard rules.

That's what I was trying to get at. The loss of even one Shield to corruption is very detrimental to the Granary plan for a non-Industrious civ.

I very likely would have been stuck at only three granaries instead of the seven I ended up with, but having granaries in those three would definitely have made a difference.

I stayed at three because I thought I had enough! I guess you found the sweet spot in the scenario.

First of all, I give no advice for how to handle Deity.

My example was just to point out that rapid expansion is possible without Granaries. If something works on Deity (REX without Granaries, in this case), you can be sure it has a place in Emperor strategy.

I also definitely would not say that a Granary REX is always the best approach. There's a lot of skill involved in reading a map and picking a playing style that's well suited to that map. But in a game like AU 203 where there are huge amounts of land between you and the nearest AI, and at least on any level below Deity, granary-boosted REXing can be an extremely powerful strategy

Oh I agree comletely. Your earlier post made it sound like Granaries are the way to expand (in other words, always queue up Warrior-Granary, or somesuch). The purpose of my post is to point out that this is still debatable. With room to expand, you'll always benefit from a Granary, that much I think anyone will admit (I hope!). But, like you said, in other cases it is not so simple. I've actually gone back and replayed the early sequences of certain games to get a verdict on which is better (Settlers or Granary), and in some cases I was further ahead with the Settler plan. It is both interesting and frustrating that it is so hard to pin down why this is the case.

I would imagine Granaries are harder to justify in MP play, unless your Expansionist and/or have done some good scouting. Not knowing if you're going to be rushed early has a major impact on whether or not you can "spare" 60 Shields.

Again, great work, but don't think your AU203 game is over; you still have to get to Communism and conquer the world!


Dominae

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by Dominae


Yes. I figured I wanted some Vet. Spearmen that would upgrade through the ages, so I built early Barracks. In retrospect this hurt my expansion considerably. Concerning your point about the Luxury slider, do not forget (AU203 SPOILER!) that there is an abundance of bonus Grassland tiles and Forest around the capital, which greatly helps keep pop down.

With the exception of one city (which had not yet been connected to any luxuries at all), I don't think I worked forests at all until after the REX phase was over and I was running out of tiles faster than my lazy, no-good (i.e. non-industrious ) workers could chop the forests. Bonus grasslands, though, are key to finishing a granary quickly enough that the population doesn't get out of hand.

Oh I agree comletely. Your earlier post made it sound like Granaries are the way to expand (in other words, always queue up Warrior-Granary, or somesuch). The purpose of my post is to point out that this is still debatable. With room to expand, you'll always benefit from a Granary, that much I think anyone will admit (I hope!). But, like you said, in other cases it is not so simple. I've actually gone back and replayed the early sequences of certain games to get a verdict on which is better (Settlers or Granary), and in some cases I was further ahead with the Settler plan. It is both interesting and frustrating that it is so hard to pin down why this is the case.

Earlier in the thread, at least one or two people argued that you're better off not delaying building a settler in order to build a granary.

If you ever run into another map where building granaries slows you down, I'd be interested to see it and see if I can figure out why.

I would imagine Granaries are harder to justify in MP play, unless your Expansionist and/or have done some good scouting. Not knowing if you're going to be rushed early has a major impact on whether or not you can "spare" 60 Shields.

Seeing as I'm already involved in some PBEM games (at least one of which you're one of my rivals in), I don't think I'll comment on that.

Again, great work, but don't think your AU203 game is over; you still have to get to Communism and conquer the world!

I'm already halfway there. I just traded Steam Power for Communism and a bunch of gold. Now the other half might be just a little bit tricker.

[Arrian]

I would imagine Granaries are harder to justify in MP play, unless your Expansionist and/or have done some good scouting. Not knowing if you're going to be rushed early has a major impact on whether or not you can "spare" 60 Shields.

Dominae,

I'm in a PBEM in which I researched pottery 1st and built a granary asap (I started a thread on it, actually). I'm China. My reasoning was this:

My capitol (moved 1 tile w/settler, happy I did) has a river, 5 bonus grassland and 1 plains wheat tile (among other, lesser terrain). Lots of production, not much food.

-There wasn't anyone right on top of me, and barbs were set to "sedentary."

-Both local AI opponents were stuck in a crappy start spot with a jungle between my civ and theirs. My human opponent made it obvious he was going to warrior rush the AI between us (meaning he would be occupied for a bit).

-I traded for BW early, and did build a couple of regular spearmen. That offered some security.

-Finally, I was able to tack on a non-agression pact to a tech deal with my human opponent. This was after I had made the granary decision, though.

The decision really came down to my relative abundance of shields versus food, and the amount of nice land nearby that I really wanted to settle asap. A granary-powered REX seemed appropriate. Since I researched pottery right away, I guess I committed to it even before I knew most of the stuff I listed above. I could have chosen not to build the granary had circumstances been different, I suppose.

In 1225 bc, I have 8 cities. I am coming out of REX mode now, building up my military and even taking a shot at the Colossus & building a temple or two. Even though my friend warrior rushed the Ottomans and took Istanbul, I have caught and passed him in score. F11 shows me in the lead in nearly every category.

I never used to like granaries. But I think I may be sold on them.

-Arrian

[Ribannah]

I had a similar starting position in my present Epic game at Realms Beyond (emperor level), except that it is an archipellago map. I built one Settler and then started my capital on that big granary known as The Pyramids.
Meanwhile I founded my second city on a food-rich spot and cranked out 3 Workers (5 turns each) before starting on more Settlers.
So I'm taking this strategy to the extreme.
I finished the Pyramids in 1150 BC. In 1000 BC, I have a total of 5 cities that are all growing fast. Thanks to my early Workers I am already first in production output.