So where do you guys stand on settling over lux tile

Hi there, new to the forum but been reading it for a while now and wanted to have your opinion on the settling on lux tile debate.

I find it usefull to settle my first settler on a lux as it allows for insta trade with any AI you met but it seems you dont get as much output of the lux as you would with a regular improvement.

It is also pretty usefull when trying to grab land fast without enough worker support to cope with the unhappiness. Overall, i do it only when having a second copy of that resource, even though i wouldnt know why i lol.

FYI I'm only starting to play immortal only since i got my first diplomatic deity win (yeah for freaking rakhamgaeng !!! Rushed the colossus for money and then played nice with my mighty neighboors, fueling wars and grabbing one city round turn 150 as the occasion presented itself with my 5 military units. Wouldnt have won without that stolen city that gave me a 4th one)

so, your thoughts ?

Its not an entirely bad idea. The drawback is you maybe don't get a mine (or plantation, etc) and so the production (food, etc) doesn't go up when you invent chemistry (or fertilizer, etc)- but then again, you CAN build in the tile you didn't plop your city in, so it ends up a wash. I'd certainly consider doing it early in the game to get sugar without the ability to clear a marsh, or some such, especially if there were multiples of the resource. I might even do it for a mineable resource if the resource was in a location where I wanted a city. Coastal river time that is mountain adjacent, happens to be a marble resource- HELL YES I settle on top of it.

The only time i tend to settle on a resource of any type is if it is the best city spot available and i would be missing out on a lot by moving 1 tile either side.

Mostly I am against it unless its marble.

I'm against it myself. Though i rarely deal with AI until i have a few settlements. I prefer to just look around a little on my first settlement and hopefully find a place by water, with a couple of resources to settle near.

budweiser said:

Mostly I am against it unless its marble.

Click to expand...

Why marble? You lose 1 production bonus from stone works when settling on marble if I'm correct. However you can still build stone works.

I settle on luxuries quite often if low on happiness and that tile is good.

There's a lot of benefits to settle on a luxury, especially hill luxuries like gold gem silver. You usually will prefer hill to flat so take that into consideration but if you will settle on flat, settling on a camp or plantation luxury is also good.

But the surrounding terrain is more important of course.
Really the only luxury you want to avoid settling on is salt, unless desert without Petra I guess.

It depends on the location/difficulty. If it's a deity game, sometimes I like to have a few spots to build forts or something. I'll usually settle cities right on top of uranium plots to make them unpillageable. I've settled right on top of iron before too. I depends on how much of what you have around in the immediate area.

yeah obviously that "tactic" is very location dependant. I wont settle on a lux\strat tile if i can get another one in a 3 tile perimeter by settling on another one.

But i often find spots where settling on lux\strat tile allows me to actually get more resources which then is a no brainer

Hill luxuries are often a good choice (if the city spot is desirable, of course) as you immediately connect them, allowing to settle a new city without temporary unhappiness (if unique) and the ability to sell it immediately.
Hills usually don't get worked for quite some time anyhow, by settling on them you get the benefits without losing the food.

almost mandatory in jungle start - saves more than 10 turns researching jungle choppage and the actual jungle choppage