chibirobo
Chieftain
IS it better to build your citys on resources or build a tile improvment on them?
Is it better to...
- Thread starter chibirobo
- Start date
JesusOnEez
Emperor
Depends on the circumstances, but most of the time you will want to improve the tile as it will obviously give more prod/food/comm once improved.
However, in some cases, you may want to settle on top. If I ever need to settle on top of a resource, it's not because of the resource itself, but becasue of a pre-planned city placement idea that I have to get the most out of all the tile in the area.
GOTM - 01 was another one. In this game, we were playing as Julius, and so Praetorians were the UU. Once Iron Working was researched, Iron was found not far east of Rome on a desert/costal tile IIRC. This has a lot of hill space and looked pretty good as a production city. I settled on top of the Iron to protect from Alex who was a close neighbour (a resource you settle on can't be pillaged), and for efficient tile usage reasons. This particular city was going to crank out Praet's, so it made sense to settle on the Iron to start cranking our Praet's immediately in that city.
So, it does depend on the circumstance, but in general, I will usually only ever think about settling on copper/iron, and then only if that copper/iron is in a potentially easy place to get pillaged (such as you cultural borders). Food and happiness resources and never think about settling on. You always get more from the tile by improving it.
However, in some cases, you may want to settle on top. If I ever need to settle on top of a resource, it's not because of the resource itself, but becasue of a pre-planned city placement idea that I have to get the most out of all the tile in the area.
GOTM - 01 was another one. In this game, we were playing as Julius, and so Praetorians were the UU. Once Iron Working was researched, Iron was found not far east of Rome on a desert/costal tile IIRC. This has a lot of hill space and looked pretty good as a production city. I settled on top of the Iron to protect from Alex who was a close neighbour (a resource you settle on can't be pillaged), and for efficient tile usage reasons. This particular city was going to crank out Praet's, so it made sense to settle on the Iron to start cranking our Praet's immediately in that city.
So, it does depend on the circumstance, but in general, I will usually only ever think about settling on copper/iron, and then only if that copper/iron is in a potentially easy place to get pillaged (such as you cultural borders). Food and happiness resources and never think about settling on. You always get more from the tile by improving it.
checkraiser
Chieftain
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2006
- Messages
- 3
Aren't resource tiles automatically improved if you settle on them? (So long as you have the prerequisite tech)
The Lardossen
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2005
- Messages
- 238
checkraiser said:
They are available to you, but you won't reap the improvements bonus. In this case the extra shields from the mined iron.
VirusMonster
Quechua General
chibirobo said:IS it better to build your citys on resources or build a tile improvment on them?
Chibirobo,
In my quechua rush article, the best starting location would be to settle on a plains/hill with either marble or stone. That way, your main city square would produce 3 hammers and you can also produce 3 hammers at a nearby forest/hill, thus giving you 6 hammer for ultimate quechua production.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=169930
The downsize of early quechua production would be that I lose to chance to fully utilize the resource later on. Marble gives +1shield +2commerce with a quarry, but settling on it means, I will only get the +1hammer bonus.
Generally, I don't settle on resources.
Similar threads
