making city on a natural resource

[Pastha]

Is there benefit in building a town ON a natural resource?

 

[Randy]

You don't need a road to get it in that town.

 

[Whomp]

Especially if it's on a hill (iron) which would take longer to road.

 

[Pastha]

I mean specifically, natural resources. I know strategic and luxery resources can be gained by making a city on it. However resources like gold, cattle, wheat.... will the center city square gain a bonus from having such resources under it?

 

[Tomoyo]

No, it won't.

 

[microbe]

No, it won't.

I know the food bonus won't be there, how about gold (or shield, for that matter)?

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Of course it will.
Food boni are entirely lost.
Commerce is retained (not a bad idea to settle on a Lux or Gold/Tobacco).
Shields are retained once the city exceeed size 6; below, 1 shield is lost (so, only settling on Iron and Furs on Plains will have a result). But, you're loosing the benefits from mining, so that sin't the best choice normally.
Most important reason for settling on Strategic/Luxury Resources is to avoid being pillaged.

 

[fdtori]

Most of the time it's not worth it because of the loss in food and/or shields but sometimes there are benefits...
For example I was playing the french and my start location was on a hill with gold next to a river, I founded Paris right on top, put my slider at top science and got bright real quick so I was keeping up with expansionist civs.