Building cities on resources - good or bad?

[Ninja2]

Since the forum search has been disabled, bear with me... what happens if you build a city on top of a resource (or if a resource is revealed directly below your city)? Do you get the benefits of the ressource, but not the bonus for improvements, or what?

It would be a pity to have oil suddenly well up under your city, but you're unable to build the drilling gear...

 

[oagersnap]

Yes, you get the benefit from the resource, but no production/food/commerce bonus AFAIK.

 

[warpstorm]

You get teh resource but not the improvements. In the example you gave you get the oil.. If you know the resource is there I wouldn't recommend building there (usually).

 

[Grogs]

You'll still have access to the resource, just as if you had built a well/mine/whatever there - once you've got the tech that would normally allow you to use it that is. You do lose pretty much all of the food/production/commerce bonuses you would get for having a citizen work that tile, so unless you've got a good reason for doing so (like immediate access to the resource) it usually isn't a good idea.

 

[Piemaster]

I think this may be slightly bugged actually. In one game I played recently, I built my capital on a square that it turned out later had copper on it. I had access to the copper but then suddenly lost it a number of turns later. As you can imagine, I got owned pretty quickly after that.

 

[CVDon]

So if you have stone close by, and decide to walk over and build your city right on the stone, you gain access to stone as soon as you have the tech to build a quary? That might hurt you for food, but it would give you a jump on stonehenge and pyramids.

 

[Ninja2]

Ok, thanks for the replies!

Like CVDon, I was also thinking about the possible strategic benefits of placing a city on top of, say, coal or iron. This way, it is not possible for the AI to easily cut the supply, since you're likely to have more than one route to your capital.

 

[Thalassicus]

So if you have stone close by, and decide to walk over and build your city right on the stone, you gain access to stone as soon as you have the tech to build a quary? That might hurt you for food, but it would give you a jump on stonehenge and pyramids.

Case in point

(Note the river )

If you encounter a situation where immediate access is more important than long-term benefit, or if your city will get more total FPC for all it's tiles, it's advantageous to build on the resource. Most of the time, you will want to avoid building there so you can get the boost to FPC once the tile is worked.

 

[oagersnap]

But it can also be useful for oil, for examle, which is often in isolated places, and thus will require you to build a new city to get it inside your cultural borders.
Such a city will likely never get above 1 or 2 population, and its only purpose is to get that oil, so it will be advantageous to have it directly on the oil, the city won't need the bonus, and the oil will be easier to defend.

 

[Grogs]

(Note the river )

That's one huge river!

 

[oagersnap]

That's one huge river!

Meh, I've seen 'em huger.

 

[SygmaZero]

So, just to clarify, regardless of where you build a city it will always produce the same food/production/commmerce?

EDIT: same f/p/c on the city tile itself

 

[oagersnap]

So, just to clarify, regardless of where you build a city it will always produce the same food/production/commmerce?

EDIT: same f/p/c on the city tile itself

Yes, except on a plains+hill, it will produce two hammers instead of one on all other terrain types. That's very useful for newly built cties, because they can (sometimes) double their production.

 

[Shillen]

So, just to clarify, regardless of where you build a city it will always produce the same food/production/commmerce?

EDIT: same f/p/c on the city tile itself

No. The amount of production/commerce the tile produces unimproved is subtracted by 1 and then added to the city square. Since most tiles do not produce more than 1 production/commerce unimproved this means the city square is generally 2 food, 1 production, 1 commerce. The only exception for a non-resource square is a plains hill that produces 2 hammers unimproved and therefore the city square produces 2 production instead of 1.

I haven't tested how this all works out with food. I've never found a city on top of a 3 food tile (except flood plains which turns to desert when you found the city so it doesn't count).

 

[zafyro]

I have built a city on top af a sugar and my city has an output of 3 food. test it.

 

[oagersnap]

I have built a city on top af a sugar and my city has an output of 3 food. test it.

Yes, but you won't be able to improve that resource, and that would've given you an even larger bonus.

 

[Shillen]

Yes, but you won't be able to improve that resource, and that would've given you an even larger bonus.

Not true. Sugar gives +1 food unimproved. A plantation then gives +1 food and +1 commerce. So if you build a plantation on sugar you get a 4 food, 0 hammers, 1 commerce tile (if no river present). If you build the city on the sugar you get 3 food, 1 hammer, 1 commerce. So you're essentially trading 1 food for 1 hammer.

A similar case is made for ivory on a plains tile. With a camp it produces 1 food, 3 hammers, 1 commerce. If you found your city on the ivory instead it produces 2 food, 2 hammers, 1 commerce. So this is pretty much the opposite of the sugar - trading 1 hammer for 1 food.

 

[oagersnap]

Not true. Sugar gives +1 food unimproved. A plantation then gives +1 food and +1 commerce. So if you build a plantation on sugar you get a 4 food, 0 hammers, 1 commerce tile (if no river present). If you build the city on the sugar you get 3 food, 1 hammer, 1 commerce. So you're essentially trading 1 food for 1 hammer.

But remember that grassland without a city or any improvements won't give any production, but if you found your city on a grassland next to the sugar, you still get the 1 production you would've got by founding your city on the sugar, but you can improve the sugar and get 4 food instead of the 3 you wouldv'e got by founding the city directly on the sugar. So essentialy, you'll lose 1 food by founding the city on the sugar.

EDIT: Same for your second example, just switch food and production.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

So if you have stone close by, and decide to walk over and build your city right on the stone, you gain access to stone as soon as you have the tech to build a quary? That might hurt you for food, but it would give you a jump on stonehenge and pyramids.

NO
you still need the tech
e.g.

Stone-plain-hill pre-masonry worked by pop=3 hammers, No Stone provided
Stone-plain-hill pre-masonry worked by city=2 food, 3 hammers, 1 Commerce No Stone provided

Stone-plain-hill with masonry worked by pop=3 hammers, No Stone provided
Stone-plain-hill with masonry worked by city=2 food, 3 hammers, 1 Commerce Stone provided

Stone-plain-hill-Quarry with masonry worked by pop=5 hammers, Stone provided

So you give up the extra 2 hammers so that you don't have to build a quarry.

 

[Fabius]

I think this may be slightly bugged actually. In one game I played recently, I built my capital on a square that it turned out later had copper on it. I had access to the copper but then suddenly lost it a number of turns later. As you can imagine, I got owned pretty quickly after that.

It's not a bug. Sometimes resources get depleted. You probably got a message in the chat box letting you know the copper was exhausted. But you also always get access to another batch somewhere probably nearby. The new batch may require you to build roads and improvements, but every time a resource disappeared like that it popped up somewhere else in my territory.

What would suck is if it popped up in a neighbor's territory instead.