Build city on resource square?

[TLF]

If I build a city on a resource square can I still get the resource or do I lose it?

 

[Derakon]

You get the resource, but you don't get all the benefits of working the square, so generally speaking, you only settle on a resource if you aren't allowing yourself to make the tile improvement that lets you use it (or if not settling on the resource would mean leaving another important resource out of your BFC).

 

[davelisowski]

it saves turns to build the improvement. sometimes you settle and there is an unrevealed resource.

generally, working the tile is better than settling. however, in a war, the enemy cannot cut-off your supply of that resource if it is under a city... unless they capture that city. pillaging an improvement is much easier.

 

[Dragonxander PR]

You do get the resource--only once you get the corresponding technology for its improvement. Say, you can settle atop a wine resource, but it won't be until you get the Monarchy technology that you'll be able to obtain the resource from there.

Even so, it's generally not advisable to settle atop resources--the tile yields they provide are generally better than their improved yields. Still, you can get a small bonus from settling atop a resource:

If the resourced tile (no forest, no improvement) yields more than the basic city tile yield (2 1 & 1 ), you'll keep that bonus. For instance, you could have a riverside plantation resource (= 2 )--you'll get 2 of those instead of 1 if you settle atop it. Some players consider building a cottage atop a plantation resource to be better than the plantation itself--this is true when you do have access to the resource by other means, as the final yield of the developed cottage (town) would be greater than the plantation's yield on the long run. Be aware this won't be true during the early game.

In the case of food resources, those are almost always best harvested, unless it's a 3-food tile that can be improved by irrigation (say, rice), but that can't be irrigated due to no possibility of chain irrigating it.

 

[stefista]

There is one important case where you should absolutely consider settling atop the resource:

Plains hill stone/martble

Why?...a worked plains quarry gives 0 food, 4 hammers, while your city get 2 food, 3 hammers (1 for the plains hill, 1 for the resource). It's like turning 1 hammer into 2 food, well worth it, unless you are in a food-rich location.

Also consider settling on flat plains stone/marble or on no-resource plains hill for 1 extra hammer in the city tile.

 

[HolyT]

I'm playing a game of Civ 4 vanilla. An enemy has one oil resource underneath a city and has the technology for wells, yet is not getting the resource (confirmed by a spy). I have a city on top of furs, and have the tech for furs, but am not getting the resource. Was this fixed in Warlords or Beyond the Sword?

 

[Seraiel]

Definately fixed in BtS.

 

[Sisiutil]

Excellent advice above on settling atop resources. I only have one point to add.

If you are trying to place a city and settling on a low-yield resource will give you a better overall location, then go for it. I will go to great lengths adjusting my dot-map so as not to settle on top of high-yield resources such as food (wheat, rice, corn, pigs, bananas, sugar) and high-commerce tiles (gold, gems, silver, dye), but with everything else I'll try to avoid it but shrug and do it if the city will the better for it. Silk, wine, and ivory are particularly ripe for this, as their yields are less than stellar most of the time.

Though if I'm playing as a Financial leader, settling on top of a riverside wine or silk tile would give me pause. As with many other things in this game, it's a judgement call.

 

[capnvonbaron]

I'll definitely settle on plains elephants if it means a better location. Plus I like zooming in on the city and seeing giant elephants trampling around the streets and buildings

I'll also strongly consider settling atop oil if its in the tundra region. That is one resource you don't want an enemy to take away from you with some cheap spy mission...

 

[jordiflor]

I remember two situations where I settled on a resource:
- on a strategic resource (copper, horses) which would otherwise fall into the borders of an over-expanding cultural AI's shrine capital. Wipe out the annoying AI before city flipping
- atop stone if there are anyway enough hammers around and I feel like rushing the Stone combo (SH, TGW, Mids). You're gonna save 6 turns.

 

[ShengWuLien]

I'll quite often settle on a riverside wine or plains spices or something--not a great tile to work, often comes in clumps, and you get a commerce bonus in the city. Can be useful early game.

I'll also settle on sugar quite often, especially dry sugar. Again, not a great tile even when improved but gives the city +1 food if settled on.

 

[duckstab]

I frequently settle on desert tiles with resources, because I often won't have enough spare food to work the corresponding improvement anyway.

 

[Archon_Wing]

I'll definitely settle on plains elephants if it means a better location. Plus I like zooming in on the city and seeing giant elephants trampling around the streets and buildings

I'll also strongly consider settling atop oil if its in the tundra region. That is one resource you don't want an enemy to take away from you with some cheap spy mission...

Yea, those are the ones are I settle on the most. Plus the yield for a well sorta sucks anyways. Instead of waiting a little to build this mediocre improvement, I think immediate access to oil and not being able to be pillaged is well worth it.

 

[Sisiutil]

Yea, those are the ones are I settle on the most. Plus the yield for a well sorta sucks anyways. Instead of waiting a little to build this mediocre improvement, I think immediate access to oil and not being able to be pillaged is well worth it.

On the other hand, oil is sometimes in such a lousy location (desert, tundra) that the well might be the only sources of hammers in the vicinity...

 

[capnvonbaron]

I frequently settle on desert tiles with resources, because I often won't have enough spare food to work the corresponding improvement anyway.

Often if its better to settle around the fringes of desert and let your culture engulf it. Then build forts on the desert resources.

 

[MeatUnit2]

When a resource is SCARCE and vitally important, such as copper in the early game, I will happily settle on the copper, build a wall and a large garrison to secure that resource.

 

[rah]

The surrounding land will help me when deciding to build on a resource. As others have said when some of the less valuable resource are clumped, I'm more likely to settle on them. A stone or marble PH on the opening is always tempting.

 

[2metraninja]

In MP sometimes it is imperative that you settle your second city atop of the copper if your neighbor is Zulu or Persia or Egypt or Maya or just someone close enough that you can feel the chariots coming

 

[(Pro)Peanut_P]

I'm playing a game of Civ 4 vanilla. An enemy has one oil resource underneath a city and has the technology for wells, yet is not getting the resource (confirmed by a spy). I have a city on top of furs, and have the tech for furs, but am not getting the resource. Was this fixed in Warlords or Beyond the Sword?

No idea what the problem is there, you can definitely settle on resources in Vanilla.

 

[2metraninja]

I'm playing a game of Civ 4 vanilla. An enemy has one oil resource underneath a city and has the technology for wells, yet is not getting the resource (confirmed by a spy). I have a city on top of furs, and have the tech for furs, but am not getting the resource. Was this fixed in Warlords or Beyond the Sword?

Maybe you have Plastics or whatever tech was making the Fur obsolete and thats why you dont get the resource?