If I settled a city on a resource could I still gain access to it? Sitsiutil settled on top of copper in one ALC game so I'm wondering how exactly does that work?

You get instant acces to it as soon as you unlock the tech required to normally improve the tile. You don't get as big a tile bonus however as improving it. But, it can't be pillaged either.

I rarely do it unless settling on a resource enables me to work more food resources in the fat cross.

Somtimes it is worth settling on jumbos (they tend to clump together, you gt 1 hammer in the city tile), or calendar food resources.

If you are quechua rushing it is good to move your settler to settle on a plains hill with marble or stone, 3 hammers straight away ;)

Settling on a resource gives you access to the resource once you learn the appropriate technology. However, you can never gain the production from the improvement you would normally put on the tile; i.e., settling on copper does not give your city tile the production of a copper mine. You only get the base (unimproved) value of the resource added to the tile's production if you settle on it.

Settling on a resource is a good idea if you are in a hurry, if you are worried about the resource being pillaged, or if you just have to have a city there for some reason. In my Jamaica game (see sig below), I settled on a gems tile in order to have a better long-term city.

For the most part, though, you should try to settle on non-resource tiles, and indeed, it's often best to settle on the worst tile, because the city tile produces the same whether it's desert, ice, plains etc. underneath.

When settling on a resource you get access to the resource if you have the pre requisite tech for it. Example, settling on cows will give you access to the +1:health: benefit of cows, if Animal Husbandry has been researched/traded for.

Edit: Seems several of us answered with the same amswer at the same time:blush:

It's usually best done if settling on the resource is just the best city spot for the area, or if you have the case like a desert iron square - it sucks anyways even with a mine, so settling on it doesn't usually cost you.

Settling on a plains ivory is good, since the square would otherwise only be 1 food 3 hammers with a camp on it, but settling on it gives you the 2 hammers from it off the bat, which is never bad to get.

Another nice tile to settle on is grassland sugar. It's like settling on top of a floodplain, but getting an extra food in the city center and not getting unhealthiness! :goodjob:

In general, I try to avoid settling on top of resources unless their "improved yield" is quite minor.

Settling on ivory is another item on my overrated list.

Settling on plains is good because you get +1 hammers. If you worked it normally, it would be 4 food at the price of two food, so you you're giving up 2 food for three hammers if you don't settle it. Plains ivory and grassland hills are +3 hammers at the cost of 1 food, (so for two food you can get 6 hammers). So in the case of ivory, you're giving up one food for two hammers (and that other food compared to plains/hills can be used to work a grassland hill).

In short, if you had two plains ivories and a plains hill, you could settle the plains hill and work the two ivories (0 net food, 8 hammers) or settle the ivory and work one plains hill (0 net food, 5 hammers).

But it depends on location. Yes, if all of them are the same, you're better to settle on the hill (never mind that you get the defense bonuses on it as well). But the choice is often plains ivory or a normal grassland to settle on, and in that case, I'll usually prefer the ivory to get the hammer boost off the bat.

Especially if a city site is food starved (and they sometimes are) it can be better to settle on the elephant because you wouldn't be able to afford working it due to lack of food

Another case are calendar resources in cottage cities, especially next to a river if you're FIN: If you choose between grassland river and calendar river, grassland river is an extra cottage (ultimately 7c1h, 3 off the bat) while calendar is +4/+5c (IIRC, could be one more). If you're fin, the city square becomes 3c, so it is immediately on par (+3 from cottage and +2 from extra city center commerce). This is especially good if you settle the city pre-calendar, as you can start working the cottage immediately and you'd have to wait to improve the resource (or do farm fist plantation later).

The one thing that hurts me the most to settle on is a metal mine of any sort. I want the work bonus more than the guaranteed access to it, more times than not.

Unless it's something silly like iron on a plain desert tile...

How about this instance

If you settle on Stone - you get wheat and two plains cows. If you settle one away from the stone - you lose a cow but get to work the Stone....Settle on the stone or not?

What I am saying would you rather get another food source in the BFC and not work the resource or work the resource and lose a food source?

Depends how badly I need the stone. If I'm in a tight race for the 'Mids, I'll settle right on top of the stone no matter what. But if getting 'Mids isn't priority or I'll get them early, or 'Mids isn't even a factor, I'd rather work the resource.

How about this instance

If you settle on Stone - you get wheat and two plains cows. If you settle one away from the stone - you lose a cow but get to work the Stone....Settle on the stone or not?

What I am saying would you rather get another food source in the BFC and not work the resource or work the resource and lose a food source?

2 food resources should be enough for the city. The other one can be used by another city.