resource city

[KinesongPayaso]

HI.
I've been playing Civ off and on, and know some pretty basic stuff, and some popular strats being used here(haven't successfully utilized a specialized city though)


anyway, on to the question
is it ok to build a city on an area with lots of useful resources, but horrible terrain?

let's say there's going to be oil, gold, deer, uranium in a certain area, that is 70% tundra/ice, 30% plains

would you build a small city, then purposely let it not grow (to avoid extra maintenance), except for the culture? just to get those resources

 

[Galileo44]

I would say this is a late city just to grab resources. However, it can easily pay for itself, as the deer + the extra food from city center would let you work 4 plains cottages. This would make it a reasonable middle ages city if only to make sure that enemies don't get it first. However, if you already have all of these resources it is probably not worth it to found the area til later.

 

[svv]

Except that they might be good in trade. I'd build the city unless you already have a healthy surplus of all those resources.

 

[Buntaro]

If it is a long term strategy, you can count on the city expanding beyond the original fat cross to encompass a resource. I do this with silver and fur a lot. I will forgo working the square to get access to more food and production, then grow into the resource and exploit it for the happiness it adds to all cities. Remember, a little more food could translate to having 2 or 3 more towns in the long run.

But as said, later in the game, just plop the city where you need it to get a very valuable resource.