Question about City Placement

[Capt Ajax]

I'm sure this has been asked 100000000 times, but I can't find the answer so I'll just post.

When you place your city on top of a resource (like stone) do you get the same benefit as if you had a quary once you discover the tech for that benefit (build quary)???

i.e....do you get a "camp" w/ a city ontop of Ivory oncy you develop hunting?

 

[ese-aSH]

no, you only get the base bonus

 

[Capt Ajax]

...bummer...

 

[VoiceOfUnreason]

When you place your city on top of a resource (like stone) do you get the same benefit as if you had a quary once you discover the tech for that benefit (build quary)???

i.e....do you get a "camp" w/ a city ontop of Ivory oncy you develop hunting?

The tile yield doesn't change, but you do get credit for connecting the resource.

 

[Love]

Do you get elephant when placeing a city on a ivory then?

 

[Underdawg]

Do you get elephant when placeing a city on a ivory then?

You get access to the resource but you do not get the bonus (in food/hammers/commerce) as you would if you had placed the proper improvement.

 

[Capt Ajax]

Ya, I was able to create War Elephants with the only Ivory reasource I have (under one of my Cities)...........but I guess I'm not getting credit for having a camp there.........it kinda sucks that a whole city could be established on a site where there is Ivory and not get the same credit as a lowly camp improvement.

When I become king of the world, I'm going to see if I can get Sid to change this so that a reasource under a city has the same effects as it improvement once that tech is discovered.

....in case anyone is wondering, the barbarian city I captured was sitting on top of my only Ivory reasource, I didn't build it that way.

 

[KMadCandy]

you can get some bonuses for some resources on the city tile, but it depends on the base tile too. for example, ivory on plains gets you an extra hammer, on grasslands it doesn't. it's never as much as you get from an actual camp/mine/quarry/whatever.

this guide shows you example, with pictures, about 2/3rds down the page or so. i've been told that some have changed but it's what i use and it works for permanoob me. i quite like settling on plains stone/marble. yes i lose a few hammers on the turns i'd be working the quarry. but instead, i get free hammers every turn forever, without having to find an extra food to feed the guy working the quarry.

 

[Capt Ajax]

Good point! Thanks for the link.

 

[cthom]

more than once the settler's little blue circle has advised me to build on a resource. that's bad advice, surely?

 

[vsipinen]

no, you only get the base bonus

I think that is really annoying. Especially when you build a city on a tile you don't know to contain some resource. In my opinion the city built on a resource should yield same bonuses as improvement built on the resource, because some resources are invisible before you have researched the required technology - and therefore you cannot always avoid building a city on a resource.

 

[weimingshi]

The way it is currently makes more sense. You don't build quarry, mines, camps or what not in the middle of a city, you just don't. As for settlling on top of ressources, alot times its not a good idea. But some times makes perfect sense, for example settle uptop of oil. Other spies can never destroy your oil well anymore and oil well don't really yield much bonus anyways. Also settling on luxury ressources that gives commerce to grab richer land into cross is not bad idea neither, a fully grown town generates more commerce than the plantations, You will eventually recoup the opportunity cost of not working the plantation and generate more commerce with the town.

 

[VoiceOfUnreason]

I think that is really annoying. Especially when you build a city on a tile you don't know to contain some resource. In my opinion the city built on a resource should yield same bonuses as improvement built on the resource, because some resources are invisible before you have researched the required technology - and therefore you cannot always avoid building a city on a resource.

Shrug. Your proposed alternative, no one would ever found a city that wasn't directly on top of a resource.

As the game currently plays, an unexceptional city tile is 5FP: one hammer, two food, plus two more food because you don't have to feed it.

The weakest resource tile is sugar, I think. If you dropped a city on that, it would be a 7 (4 food, 1 hammer, +2 because it is free). With the big resources, it gets silly (2F + 4 hammers +free tile if you settle on copper; 5/6/7F + 1P + free if you settle on corn). And that's on top of the benefits that already exist (a connected, unpillageable resource).

 

[Bahacles44]

You don't build quarry, mines, camps or what not in the middle of a city, you just don't.

Actually....

History is full of instances where cities are built up using stone blocks quarried out of the basement. Rome, for example, is honeycombed with tunnels left over from its early quarrying days. It really just depends on the type of stone to be found.

Other examples include Paris, Budapest and New York (if I'm not mistaken, some of its brownstone is/was quarried right in Manhatten).

 

[draethor]

more than once the settler's little blue circle has advised me to build on a resource. that's bad advice, surely?

Generally, yes, but not always.

Though maybe it's just BtS or the fact that my playstyle has changed, I find I rarely follow the blue circle these days. Just don't be shy about building on top of a resource - all you lose is the bonus an improvement would add (which for some resources, like ivory on grassland, is pretty small). Often the gain for doing so can be much larger (i.e. maybe in a high hammer low food area, building on top of marble will let you access a couple flood plain tiles).