Removable terrain features, like woods or jungle, are removed when settled on and do not effect city yields when placed there. a permanent feature like a hill will only add its benefit if its unimproved base yield+added yield is more than than the base yield of the city. So a grassland hill's base yield is +2 food bc it's grassland, its modified yield is +1 production due to the hill, for a total of +2f1p. Since that yield is the same as the base city yield, there are no added yields for cities on grassland hills. For Plains hills, its base yield is +1f1p and its modified yield due to hill is +1p, for a total of +1f2p. cities always give their inherent base yield as minimum, so a city on a plains hill will give +2f2p.
It works essentially the same for resources. A stone grassland hex yields +2f1p, and since that is equal to the base yield of the city it will not increase city yield. A stone grassland hill on the other hand yields +2 food (for grassland) +1 production (for hill) and +1 production (for stone) giving +2f2p, which does modify the city yield to +2f2p.
In the case of grassland rice, it yields +3 food and is reflected in city yield (+3f1p). Grassland+marsh+rice yields +4 food but since the marsh is a removable feature (as opposed to removable resource) the city will only yield +3 food for the rice.
Luxuries and strategics give their bonus yields as well, including food, gold, science, culture and faith where the bonus+base yield is an improvement over the base yield of the city.
Cocoa gives +3 gold to a city settled on it
Marble gives +1 culture
Tea +1 science
etc.
Thank you so much for this description! Makes sense now. There is one remaining question, however, regarding settling on bonus resources. Does the city itself automatically provide the builder improvement - increasing yields even more? To use 6otM 17 as example, if we settled on the rice, would that yield be 3f1p (based on your description), or would the city automatically 'build the farm' increasing yields to 4f1p? Based on the what I read, it does not 'build' the improvement, but only includes the base yield of the resource itself. If this is so, what is the advantage of settling on a resource? I see there as two 'immediate' advantages, but over time these may turn into hindrances:
Benefit 1) Immediately connect the resource to the city. So settling on the spice automatically 'connects' the spice.
Benefit 2) Immediate increased yield in early game. For example if I settled on the rice, I could have my citizen working the furs, giving my first few turns extra yields.
Both of these, however, would seem to level out as you progress through the first 50 turns or so. If you did not settle in place, the following examples would occur:
Benefit 1 - drawback) Rather than settle on it, I would use a builder to improve the spice, giving me the additional yields of a plantation (+1 gold / +0.5 housing / and +1 food after scientific theory). These additional yields would not be possible if I settle on the spice.
Benefit 2 - drawback) There are a finite number of resources available in each city location, once the city population outgrows the quantity of resources, a non-resource tile would be used, evening this early-game benefit out.
In other words, I'm not convinced that settling on resource is the best LONG-TERM solution, in spite of its initial benefits. In Civ 5 I settled on certain resources, and the immediate benefit was noticeable, but I feel longer term that extra food / production from an improvement (farm/mine) might outweigh the initial gains.
What are everyone's thoughts on this?
In any case, I think I will settle SW and build a builder first, followed by a small army to explore and defend against barbs....
