Ok, so I tried searching for this and I could tell it was gonna take a while, so I thought I'd ask it here.

So, when you go into your domestic advisor and there are certain resources available for trade like Coal and Iron, it says +1 hammer. Does that mean you get +1 hammer in every city that has access to it through trade routes?

And assuming you have the resource yourself, and have mined it or whatever, does that also give +1 to all cities who have access to it, or just to the tile itself?

CivIV is my first Civ experience, and it's taking me a while to get the nuances of the game.

Thanks!
Nat

All cities get the +1 hammer for each different type of resources like this (as long as they're connected). This is not to be confused with the hammers available from working the tile directly.

If you add up your sources of hammers in a connected city, you should notice it. There's a small icon set in the top right that shows the resources providing hammers in addition to the city tiles/whatever else.

That sounds right. All cities that are connected through trade routes.. Because when you hook up a +1 :) resource, the happiness cap raises in all cities connected. so I think the hammer works the same way.

welcome to the forum! :beer:

thx dudes! i'm so in love with this game already.

Welcome to civfanatics natxavier. :dance::band:[party]

Both posters above who answered your question are wrong. You don't get additional hammers in a city that is connected through traderoutes to iron. The indication of the hammer in the city screen is a bit misleading.

Being connected to resources can give you all kinds of bonuses. You get happiness bonuses for being connected to luxury resources, you get health bonuses for being connected to food resources and you get access to certain units for being connected to strategic resources (iron for swordsmen).

There are a few resources that can give a percentile production bonus to certain constructions, most notable among these resources are stone and marble. These two resources give a significant percentile production bonus to the construction of certain wonders, they speed up the production speed of these wonders. This bonus is mentioned in the civilopedia entry of the wonders.

Now I'm even more confused. I know that in trading for certain resources, I gain certain privileges [e.g., Iron --> Swordsman] ... but if you're not getting +1:hammers: in all cities with access to that resource via :traderoute:, then where is that +1:hammers: going? And if nowhere, then why the crikey is it even there??? LOL

Go in and count the hammers on the tiles you're working, and then count how many it reads next to the production bar. If there's an extra +1 then it works how me and TMIT said. If not then this other guy is right. I'm too stubborn to believe just one guy opposing me. If maybe a whole gang of ppl told me otherwise, then yeah.. But right now it's 2 to 1.

Gang member no. 2 says hello. ;)

Gang member no. 3 signing in.

These labels are basically meaningless. Apparently they were supposed to indicate the bonus the resource gives to the tile it is on, not to indicate any bonus from trading. They definitely do not give +1 hammer/food/commerce to all connected cities as you might conclude (a lot of people have complained these labels are misleading). Basically ignore them.

Gang member no. 3 signing in.

These labels are basically meaningless. Apparently they were supposed to indicate the bonus the resource gives to the tile it is on, not to indicate any bonus from trading. They definitely do not give +1 hammer/food/commerce to all connected cities as you might conclude (a lot of people have complained these labels are misleading). Basically ignore them.

Completely wrong.

A mined plains hill gives 4 hammers, right? Then why does a mined plains hill with iron give 8(?) hammers, if it just adds one?

I've counted my hammers before, and there's anywhere from one to six extra (1-9 with a forge) hammers that I believe must come from Iron, copper, horses, coal, oil or aluminum. Same goes for excess food, although I don't really understand the math that a granary adds. And I know for certain that luxury resources give happiness.

Besides, why would the AI want to trade food resources if they gave no bonuses?

(Also, what's this mysterious "commerce resource" you're talking about?)

The +resource indicator is the bonus that you get for working that resource on an UNIMPROVED tile. This bonus is why a city founded on a plains/hill/stone receives 3:hammers: instead of 2:hammers:. Cities gets 2:food: 1:hammers: 1:commerce: OR (for each particular category) the unimproved bonuses of the tile.

Additional bonuses due to mines/farms/irrigation further increase the total yield (which is why an plains/hill/iron/mine gives you like 6:hammers:).

The example I remember best:
Post-biology irrigated grassland corn (7:food:)
2 - grassland
1 - unimproved corn bonus (this is what is being described by the corn description - i.e., it is a property of corn unrelated to any other considerations.)
2 - corn resource farm
1 - irrigated farm (if you build a farm on a resource without irrigation you do not get this)
1 - biology farm

I think the game info is unclear in regards to farms. The farm itself does not provide food directly. It must provide food via irrigation, biology and/or resources. A grassland farm disconnected from its irrigation chain will not yield any bonus food (not counting the biology bonus - if applicable). A farm on a resource will not get the irrigation bonus unless it is part of an irrigation chain or is next to fresh water.

Thus, you can cottage a grassland corn and still have a 3:food: tile.

There is no way to receive :food::hammers::commerce: other than directly into a specific city (either via tiles. trade routes, corporations). Since a resource being traded for cannot be worked by a city there is no way to harvest this bonus. Likewise, the bonus stays with the tile. In the plains/hill/stone example, your city will have 3:hammers: whether you trade the stone away or keep it.

Remember, cities only get unimproved tile yields so researching masonry will not change the tile yield. However, without masonry you will not get the benefits of stone OTHER THAN the +1:hammers: from the tile itself.

A mined plains hill gives 4 hammers, right? Then why does a mined plains hill with iron give 8(?) hammers, if it just adds one?

An unmined plains iron hill gives 3 hammers. With a mine you would expect 5 but you get more because a MINE yields more hammers when built on iron.


I've counted my hammers before, and there's anywhere from one to six extra (1-9 with a forge) hammers that I believe must come from Iron, copper, horses, coal, oil or aluminum.


More likely they are the overflow from a previous build since your beliefs are wrong. Mouse over the hammer icon in the city screen to determine exactly where the hammers are coming from.


Same goes for excess food, although I don't really understand the math that a granary adds. And I know for certain that luxury resources give happiness.


A granary, once filled (which requires you to acquire half of your current total food bar in surplus) will simply cause the food bar to only empty half-way during each subsequent population growth. A partially filled granary will reset to its current food level.


Besides, why would the AI want to trade food resources if they gave no bonuses?


For the health bonus most "food resources" give.


(Also, what's this mysterious "commerce resource" you're talking about?)

A commerce resource is a one whose unimproved bonus is :commerce: as opposed to :food: or :hammers:.

The yield type of a resource (food, commerce, hammer) does not directly correlate to the bonus that the resource gives (happy/health/strategic). Additionally, some resources will give improved bonuses different from (or at least in addition to) their unimproved bonuses. For example, unimproved sugar gives 1:commerce: but a plantation sugar gives an additional 1:commerce: AND 1:food:

Go in and count the hammers on the tiles you're working, and then count how many it reads next to the production bar. If there's an extra +1 then it works how me and TMIT said. If not then this other guy is right. I'm too stubborn to believe just one guy opposing me. If maybe a whole gang of ppl told me otherwise, then yeah.. But right now it's 2 to 1.

If one knows they are right then 100 people disagreeing with him does not make him wrong. Likewise, agreement by others does not make one right.

If you don't know you are right then why should it matter whether it is one person or a bunch that oppose you. Either way you are guessing and so cannot assert correctness in the face of opposition. You would either need to disprove the opposition or prove your own assertions (or just wait for someone who can give a detailed explanation to chip in and then either poke holes or agree).

Note: the above only works well for things that have a well-defined "rightness".

All cities get the +1 hammer for each different type of resources like this (as long as they're connected). This is not to be confused with the hammers available from working the tile directly.

If you add up your sources of hammers in a connected city, you should notice it. There's a small icon set in the top right that shows the resources providing hammers in addition to the city tiles/whatever else.

Please provide a screenshot showing a resource area of the main city screen with hammer icons. The only ones I've ever come across are health and happy (not counting the icons for the resources themselves). The strategic resources (left column) have no icon next to them and the other have an icon for the basic resource bonus as well as an additional icon if you have the building that gives the additional happy/health bonus for that resource.

The fact that :hammers: don't show up should be the first indication that in fact those :hammers: are not available to all cities but only to the city actively working the resource tile.

If one knows they are right then 100 people disagreeing with him does not make him wrong. Likewise, agreement by others does not make one right.

If you don't know you are right then why should it matter whether it is one person or a bunch that oppose you. Either way you are guessing and so cannot assert correctness in the face of opposition. You would either need to disprove the opposition or prove your own assertions (or just wait for someone who can give a detailed explanation to chip in and then either poke holes or agree).

Note: the above only works well for things that have a well-defined "rightness".

That is what I'm doing -waiting for someone who can give a detailed explanation. I think it works one way. I am not alone. I did not say you were wrong. The "Gang" of opposition is still forming and pleading their case. This is an insignificant yet interesting game mechanic at the moment.

Agreement by others does prove you were right or wrong in times of assertion. Something will be proven. The proof will be in this thread. The key though is that one of those others needs to have the detailed explanation to the :hammers: question. Is Sid Meier a member here?

Agreements don't prove anything. Proofs come in terms of
a) screenshots with evidence
b) mathematics

and that's exactly because a and b are both not opinable, and therefore don't need any agreement.

Cities gets 2:food: 1:hammers: 1:commerce: OR (for each particular category) the unimproved bonuses of the tile.


It is better said that cities get 2-1-1 unless the basic terrain yeld where it's built already has one (or more, but it isn't possible) higher value.

Agreements don't prove anything. Proofs come in terms of
a) screenshots with evidence
b) mathematics

and that's exactly because a and b are both not opinable, and therefore don't need any agreement.

Agreements do prove things. If on a civ matter you believed something one way, but Sid Meier himself said it otherwise, would you ask him to present "evidence" before believing it is so? I would think not. You would believe it is the way he says it is, then perhaps ask out of curiosity of game mechanics, why? Experts do not owe you their expertise on a matter, teachers do.

Another example. Lawyers can bicker back and forth in the court of law. Nothing is actually proven however, until the jury ("Gang" of opposition) comes to an agreement. Their agreement proves the defendant's guilt or innocence.

Very fine posts there, Polobo.

Another example. Lawyers can bicker back and forth in the court of law. Nothing is actually proven however, until the jury ("Gang" of opposition) comes to an agreement. Their agreement proves the defendant's guilt or innocence.

lol @ how a hammer discussion got hijacked and is now a right-or-wrong discussion. let me jump into that as well.

your example is wrong: a jury decision does not prove someone guilty or not. evidence does (to a certain extend). a jury decision is just that: a decision by a number of appointed people to punish a person for a crime they think he did, because they believe the evidence. So agreement does not prove things. It is the underlying facts that prove things. as onedreamer said: mathematics and screenshots are not subject to opinion. agreement/disagreement is.

now get back to hammers you guys, because I have actually no clue what you are talking about when you mentione those +1:hammers: :D

Completely wrong.

A mined plains hill gives 4 hammers, right? Then why does a mined plains hill with iron give 8(?) hammers, if it just adds one?

The labels are claimed to refer to the unimproved tiles (where iron does only add one hammer, corn one food, incense one commerce, and so on). Note that I consider this a lousy justification for the labels, but its the only one we've been presented with - I'm just passing it on, not coming up with it.

I've counted my hammers before, and there's anywhere from one to six extra (1-9 with a forge) hammers that I believe must come from Iron, copper, horses, coal, oil or aluminum. Same goes for excess food, although I don't really understand the math that a granary adds.

Then I'm sorry, but you're adding it up wrong. You don't get free hammers like this - ditto for food and commerce. A quick screenshot from a recent game:

185196

The city has access to all "hammer" resources except stone. This city has a full set of coal plant, factory and forge, and is generating 82 hammers per turn. This corresponds to a base hammer output of 41. If you look at the screenshot you'll see that the city is getting:

20 from the tiles, including the city tile.
4 from engineers
4 from the coal plant (random event)
13 from Mining Inc

That's all 41 accounted for. There's no hammers directly from resources.


And I know for certain that luxury resources give happiness.

Who claimed they didn't?

Besides, why would the AI want to trade food resources if they gave no bonuses?

For the health or happiness "food resources" give. No resource gives food/hammers/commerce directly through trading. They all however give health, happiness or strategic bonuses.

(Also, what's this mysterious "commerce resource" you're talking about?)

I never said a word about a "commerce resource". I was referring to the fact that the misleading labels sometimes indicate food or commerce instead of hammers. Again, these corresponded to the bonus given to the tile they are on in an unimproved state.

If one knows they are right then 100 people disagreeing with him does not make him wrong. Likewise, agreement by others does not make one right.

If you don't know you are right then why should it matter whether it is one person or a bunch that oppose you. Either way you are guessing and so cannot assert correctness in the face of opposition. You would either need to disprove the opposition or prove your own assertions (or just wait for someone who can give a detailed explanation to chip in and then either poke holes or agree).

True, but he did ask for some opposition so I thought I'd chip in ;). I had a bit more time for this post so I've included a screenshot for proof.

Agreements do prove things. If on a civ matter you believed something one way, but Sid Meier himself said it otherwise, would you ask him to present "evidence" before believing it is so? I would think not. You would believe it is the way he says it is, then perhaps ask out of curiosity of game mechanics, why? Experts do not owe you their expertise on a matter, teachers do.

If what Sid was saying was in direct contradiction to observed game mechanics which I could supply evidence for, then yes. Even experts make mistakes, that's why evidence is useful.

Another example. Lawyers can bicker back and forth in the court of law. Nothing is actually proven however, until the jury ("Gang" of opposition) comes to an agreement. Their agreement proves the defendant's guilt or innocence.

Ugh - don't get me started on this one. Nothing is "proven" in any scientific sense by a jury's decision - this is at best an informed conclusion which a high proportion of people will come to. All the proving is supposed to be done by the evidence, and a jury is not infallible.

Here's my lovely city.


http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s183/natxavier/example03.jpg


...and here's my production.


http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s183/natxavier/example02.jpg


Here are the Peeps that make my city the lovely place that it is. Thx to the Engie for the +2:hammers:.


http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s183/natxavier/example04.jpg


Finally, here are all my resources, the lifeblood of my city. While the luxuries and foodstuffs are giving me plenty of :health: & :) & :commerce: , my mined resources (owned or traded for) all say +1:hammers:, but their effect is nowhere to be seen. As you can see, I have 7:hammers: from the worked tiles +2:hammers: from my Engie, +100%:hammers: with Coal Plant + Power, for a total of 18:hammers:.


http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s183/natxavier/example01.jpg


In certain cities, it also shows +100% from resources:


http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s183/natxavier/example05.jpg


I'd point out that the only difference is that you actually have to hover over the resource to see the +1:hammers:, whereas the other resources just list their effects on the screen [and also by hovering]. This is a very misleading trait.


At any rate, Thanks for the detailed explanation, Polobo, you cleared up a few things for me.

nat

In certain cities, it also shows +100% from resources:


http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s183/natxavier/example05.jpg


I'd point out that the only difference is that you actually have to hover over the resource to see the +1:hammers:, whereas the other resources just list their effects on the screen [and also by hovering]. This is a very misleading trait.


At any rate, Thanks for the detailed explanation, Polobo, you cleared up a few things for me.

nat

Whenever you see such a bonus as +100% bonus from resources, you're building something that gets a production bonus from being connected to certain resources. Check the civilopedia entry of the construction and there the bonus will be explained.

You're absolutely correct that the mouseover hammer is misleading. That's the reason you also got a few incorrect answers. The +1 hammer mouseover information is correct when you actually hold the mouse over a tile with for instance iron as the tile actually gets an unimproved production increase of +1 hammer (and even more hammers if you build a mine there). This information should however not be shown when you hold the mouse over the iron resource in the resources list inside a city. In that location, the information is useless and misleading. You could say that it's a small interface error.

BTW, I saw you mention that you got food from being connected to resources. That's not completely accurate, you get health from being connected to certain resources and health is not the same as food (although it's related). You get a +1 :food: entry when you mouse over food resources, but this is the same misleading information that you get when you mouse over the iron resource.

Agreements do prove things. If on a civ matter you believed something one way, but Sid Meier himself said it otherwise, would you ask him to present "evidence" before believing it is so? I would think not. You would believe it is the way he says it is, then perhaps ask out of curiosity of game mechanics, why? Experts do not owe you their expertise on a matter, teachers do.

Another example. Lawyers can bicker back and forth in the court of law. Nothing is actually proven however, until the jury ("Gang" of opposition) comes to an agreement. Their agreement proves the defendant's guilt or innocence.

Since the +1 topic appears to be answered I'll toss in my closing arguments to defend my assertion that (for things that have rightness) using a polling mechanism to discover the truth is a useful but imperfect solution.

There is a difference between being able to prove the rightness (in a court of law or otherwise) and its existence.

Your jury example has already been annihilated so I'll provide you a better one.

Take the shape of the Earth. Before Galileo pretty much everyone and their grandmother believed that the Earth was flat. Without being able to travel into space and look at the Earth it is nearly impossible to PROVE that the Earth was indeed round(ish) but now we now it in fact is. Those people who believed the Earth was flat (a majority of the Earth's population I would bet) were wrong nonetheless.

An expert is an expert BECAUSE he can prove his assertions. If you trust an "expert" without requiring such proof then you share in the blame if you act on such information and it proves to be wrong. For many things this is of minor consequence (or you do not have the necessary skills to interpret the assertion) and thus it is quicker (necessary) to trust in someone (or a group thereof) but once two experts assert differing opinions unless you yourself understand the proofs and logic behind the assertions you are in no position to make or support an assertion of your own.

Even in court an "expert" is required to prove their credentials (and the opposition can stipulate - agreeing that the witness is indeed an expert) before they can be treated as such. In the Sid example; the fact he designed the game would qualify him as an expert and, without a desire to prove him wrong, the average person would take his word regarding game mechanics. I would not, however, take his word regarding investments (I'd rather ask Warren Buffet) . I still trust the guy (I don't think he would lie) but I am unsure regarding his expertise in the subject matter. Even with the game topics, if my observations and tests indicated something different than what Sid told me I would indeed question him to prove his assertion (as well as probably show my own proof that his assertion is indeed false). Sid designed the game, he didn't code it (at least not all of it) and thus must have incomplete knowledge of it workings (not to mention bugs). This is similar to how man did not create the Earth but that is who we must ask to answer such questions since we cannot ask "the creator".

You're absolutely correct that the mouseover hammer is misleading. That's the reason you also got a few incorrect answers. The +1 hammer mouseover information is correct when you actually hold the mouse over a tile with for instance iron as the tile actually gets an unimproved production increase of +1 hammer (and even more hammers if you build a mine there). This information should however not be shown when you hold the mouse over the iron resource in the resources list inside a city. In that location, the information is useless and misleading. You could say that it's a small interface error.

That is the best detailed explanation I've read in the whole thread. Why was this type of information withheld until page 2?


your example is wrong: a jury decision does not prove someone guilty or not. evidence does (to a certain extend). a jury decision is just that: a decision by a number of appointed people to punish a person for a crime they think he did, because they believe the evidence. So agreement does not prove things. It is the underlying facts that prove things. as onedreamer said: mathematics and screenshots are not subject to opinion. agreement/disagreement is.

I thought someone might say that. Even if the lawyers presented NO evidence whatsoever, that jury would still come to an agreement though. The agreement in the instance of NO evidence would prove the defendant was innocent in the court. My example was not wrong. Rigged, maybe.. hehe.

An expert is an expert BECAUSE he can prove his assertions. If you trust an "expert" without requiring such proof then you share in the blame if you act on such information and it proves to be wrong. For many things this is of minor consequence (or you do not have the necessary skills to interpret the assertion) and thus it is quicker (necessary) to trust in someone (or a group thereof) but once two experts assert differing opinions unless you yourself understand the proofs and logic behind the assertions you are in no position to make or support an assertion of your own.

Interesting entire post. I'll reply to this section here in the bold. At the time of my assertion (2nd post), there were no differing opinions. I only thought it worked the same as the poster before me.

I'm glad the :hammers: case is solved. lol :hide:

That is the best detailed explanation I've read in the whole thread. Why was this type of information withheld until page 2?

I thought someone might say that. Even if the lawyers presented NO evidence whatsoever, that jury would still come to an agreement though. The agreement in the instance of NO evidence would prove the defendant was innocent in the court. My example was not wrong. Rigged, maybe.. hehe.

If I killed someone but no one could prove it in a court of law that does not change the fact that I am indeed the killer. In fact, the jury's conclusion is not that the defendant is innocent but rather that the defendant is NOT GUILTY. Our society supports innocence until proven guilty; but being innocent in a court of law does not mean that one is truly innocent of the crime.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is within earshot does it still make a sound?

Your initial assertion is not what I had qualms with; it was your response when a contradictory assertion was made. Instead of saying "I'm right because TMIT agrees with me" it would have been more upfront to say "I don't know if TMIT or Roland is correct since I've never actually attempted to prove either assertion. TMIT's logic is reasonable and Roland didn't really supply any evidence supporting his assertion so I'll stick with TMIT's logic."

BTW: Logic is very helpful as well but (as often with man-made designs) the correct answer is not always a logical answer.

That is the best detailed explanation I've read in the whole thread. Why was this type of information withheld until page 2?

It might have saved us a lot of discussion if my first post had been a bit more detailed, huh. ;)

Normally, I go into more details when I answer a question, but it was fairly late when I wrote that and thus I just gave a short correct answer so that the original poster at least had access to the correct information. The next day, I saw the lengthy discussion. In hindsight, I should have written a few extra sentences. On the other hand, I really hadn't expected such a lengthy discussion. :crazyeye:

Agreements do prove things. If on a civ matter you believed something one way, but Sid Meier himself said it otherwise, would you ask him to present "evidence" before believing it is so? I would think not. You would believe it is the way he says it is, then perhaps ask out of curiosity of game mechanics, why? Experts do not owe you their expertise on a matter, teachers do.

you know what, I am somewhat more emancipated than you, and don't believe what someone in whatever position says is true just because he is in whatever position. You are reasoning like a middle ages catholic blacksmith who believes that Earth is at the center of the Universe because the Pope said so.

you know what, I am somewhat more emancipated than you, and don't believe what someone in whatever position says is true just because he is in whatever position. You are reasoning like a middle ages catholic blacksmith who believes that Earth is at the center of the Universe because the Pope said so.

I'm sure you get into a lot of conversations with catholic blacksmiths from the middle ages.. exactly how old are you, immortal?! You are nothing more than me, a human on this Earth. You fail to see the power of agreement, but that's ok. I don't think of myself as more than you despite your flaw. ;)

Before Galileo pretty much everyone and their grandmother believed that the Earth was flat. Without being able to travel into space and look at the Earth it is nearly impossible to PROVE that the Earth was indeed round.

Both of these statements are VERY wrong.

Just sayin' ;)