Building cities on resources - question

Hi guys again I'm new to civ 4.

If I build a city on top of a resource. Say cows or spice. Will I automatically get the resource once I have the appropirate technology? Do I lose out on the benefits of say, making a pasture in the cow example if I do this?

Thanks

Yes, you lose the ability to build a pasture and reap the benefits of that extra food. But you automatically get the resource's benefit, in the case of the cow, +1 health. Do not build cities on top of food resources! It is ok to build on top of all the other resources though, but not always the smartest thing to do. I'll build on top of military resources sometimes if I'm claiming it for an essential early rush and the rival civ has a city near it.

I never build cities on top of resources. Ever. It doesn't really have a negative effect on gameplay aside from a few lost hammers or food, but it is just a little quirk of mine, I simply can not have a city on a resource.

If I find out later I did settle on top of a resource, like say, Oil, and I didn't know it, I will actually enter Worldbuilder and move the resource over a tile or two. But to answer your question: You still get the resource and it's effects, in addition to the trivial un-improved tile bonus. For example, if you settled on a Horse, you would still be able to make cavalry, and your city would produce one extra hammer from the horse resource, but you lose the extra hammers and gold from the pasture improvement.

But an advantage to building a city on top of a resource like iron is that it is a non-pillagable resource to your opponents. Hence, you don't need to protect your one source of metal during a homeland invasion.

Building on top of a resource can also give an immediate boost to a city when settled, for instance settling on an bronze hills/plains will make your city square generate 3 hammers - the bonus only applies if it brings the square above the city minimum of 2F 1H 1C. So settling on uranuim never gives a bonus, and nor does a gold/hill (unless it is by a river)

If time is critical (just discovered BW, need axes NOW) then by all means, plop your city ON the Copper.

Also, some resources don't give a very good improvement bonus; Oil comes to mind, especially as it tends to be found in places where the tile's value is lessened anyway. Considering how important Oil is, it's not one bit dumb to build a city ON the Oil to eliminate the possibility of it getting pillaged or sabotaged. Then all you have to worry about is getting blockaded or captured, which you were worried about anyway.

In the most recent ALC game, Sisiutil placed his 2nd city on top of a copper resource AND one tile off the coast. Both are usually no-no's, but due to the awkward layout of the map (and the close proximity of Montezuma) this was a classic example when it's actually a GOOD idea to do both of those things.

Also, settling on a resource means it can't be pillaged by spies.

EweezE said:

Do not build cities on top of food resources!

Click to expand...

99.8% of the time this is true, but there are exceptions. For instance, I just finished a game where I built a city on top of a Pig resource, in order to access a coastal Fish -- trading a 6F tile to work a 6F2C tile (+1H with Moai Statues) was a worthwhile choice IMO.

(vanilla)

I will often build a city on any bonus that requires a plantation (very early on in the game). So i can benefit from something that will normally be untouchable for an extended period of time. Also if i am playing a larger map then i may need to extend the life of stonehenge in which case calendar technology cannot be researched at all, making plantation bonuses even more useless.

Frankthetank said:

But an advantage to building a city on top of a resource like iron is that it is a non-pillagable resource to your opponents. Hence, you don't need to protect your one source of metal during a homeland invasion.

Click to expand...

Nor can spies sabotage your one source of metal or oil. This is a pretty big deal in terms of oil or uranium !!!

Don't settle on food resources you could work right away. Do settle on things like bananas if they're in your initial BFC and you think the short term extra food from the city square outweighs having a plantation later. There is little penalty to settling on elephants...use your judgment.

Stone and marble are a special case. Settling on these early not only allows you greater than the 1 base city tile hammer, it gives you INSTANT access to a wonder resource. This can matter, sometimes a lot.

EweezE said:

Do not build cities on top of food resources!

Click to expand...

jerVL/kg said:

99.8% of the time this is true, but there are exceptions. For instance, I just finished a game where I built a city on top of a Pig resource, in order to access a coastal Fish -- trading a 6F tile to work a 6F2C tile (+1H with Moai Statues) was a worthwhile choice IMO.

Click to expand...

That is a good trade off. In instances like that, I agree with settling on top of food resources. But I have yet to come across a situation like that. Closest thing to was in my current game -- I captured a city that was settled on sugar by the AI. While sugar is not an "all out" food resource, it can still be considered one in low food areas. The sugar city actually works, because it grabs a clam off the coast since it is settled on the sugar.. City's center square yields 3F1H1C. I'll rephrase the warning. Avoid settling on food resources unless you know what you're doing! .2% happens, .2% of the time.

So i can benefit from something that will normally be untouchable for an extended period of time.

Click to expand...

It doesn't work. You need the tech to be able to get the resource; so even with a city on banana, you wont have any health benefit until you get calendar. As far as I remember, this was true since vanilla.

JujuLautre said:

It doesn't work. You need the tech to be able to get the resource; so even with a city on banana, you wont have any health benefit until you get calendar. As far as I remember, this was true since vanilla.

Click to expand...

Yea that would be typical! sigh

I was thinking that since they are visible on the map, there would be an effect. When will i learn never to trust the obvious and logical in civ4!! lol