Settling on Copper

[Fye]

I've noticed in BTS when I settle on copper I don't get the extra hammer. What is up with that? As far as I know it's still working normally for other resources, just not copper. Founding a city on horses gave me the extra hammer as usual..

Was this an intended change, and if it was well.. why?

 

[JujuLautre]

Founding a city on a ressource has always exactly worked the same way. If the tile on which you get the city produce more than 2 food, or more than 1 hammer, or more than 1 commerce, then you get 2/1/1 plus the extra. Otherwise you get 2/1/1.

So if you settle on a grassland copper, you get 2/1/1 since the tile produce 2/1/0. If you settle on a plains hill copper, you get 2/3/1, since the tile produce 0/3/0.

 

[ezwip]

Connection lagged and I double posted. My mistake.

 

[ezwip]

I had a challenge to capture a city and acquire the horse resource. The city was built on the horse resource and it confused me. Don't I need a pasture? If I found a city or conquer one with a resource I actually need do I get it without building an improvement?

 

[Fye]

Ah I see, I just remembered getting +2 hammers from founding on copper.. Does this mean I'll get the 2 hammers if I settle on plains/copper(no hill)?

Edit:Ezwip: When you found on a resource that city can use the resource immediatly, but for other cities to use it they still need to be connected to that city by roads.

 

[ezwip]

So if I found a city on horse or copper I can get use of it, but if I found a city on dye or spices I'm a moron because I can not build a plantation? In other words if I build a city on a resource is there a chance of me getting less of a bonus due to that?

 

[KMadCandy]

here is an article with pictures and stuff. this link is to page 2 of 2, the pics relavant to this discussion are about 3/4 down the page.

pasted directly from that:
Here is Brokguitar's list of the types of the bonuses you get for settling on top of a specific resource. You do not need the required technology to gain the extra FPC bonus provided by these resources.

Commerce Resources: When Dye, Gold, Gems, Incense, Fur, Silk, Silver, Spice, and Wine are next to a river, you will receive Two Extra Commerce when you settle on top of them.

Food Resources: When Bananas, Rice, Sugar, Sheep, Corn, Cows, and Pigs are on Grassland Tiles Only (no hills) you are able to produce One Extra Food when you settle on top of them.

Production Resources: When Coal, Copper, Iron, Marble, Oil, Stone, Aluminum, Horses, and Ivory are on Plains Tiles Only (not hills) you are able to produce One Extra Hammer when you settle on top of them.

Now if these same resources are on a Plains/Hill tile you can produce Two Extra Hammers.

--end of quote.

i settle on stone/marble/ plains ivory when the city cross makes sense. i lose a bit compared to turns i'd have somebody working the tile, but instead i get the bonus hammer every turn without ever having to find extra food to feed somebody working it. if the only way a city will work out is to settle on gems/silver/gold i collapse in a fit of tears.

edit for ezwip: if i'm understanding your question, "In other words if I build a city on a resource is there a chance of me getting less of a bonus due to that?", yes you do lose compared to turns you'd actually be working the tile. sometimes it's worth it IMO, and i don't think it makes you a moron, but i'm a permanoob so what do i know? see the article i linked above for waaaaaay more info.

 

[Fye]

@ezwip: Generally it's not a good idea to found on a resource since you're getting much less additional hammers, food , or commerce but there are certain situations where it makes sense. As far as I know you'll get every other bonus that tile normally entails, whether it's a strategic resources that enables units, +happiness, +health, etc. The only difference is that obviously you can't build an improvement where you founded a city(So you're getting much less, or even no tile benefit), and that you'll have the bonus a bit quicker than normal. Since founding a city is obviously faster than building an improvement then a road.

 

[Enigma256]

you get the ressources once you could build a plantation.

you don't get the other boni a plantation would grant

 

[Stylesrj]

Coal on a plains hill with a mine and railroad would provide a boatload of production. I think it would be 7 or 8 hammers for that one square

Aluminium on the other hand will also provide the same production, however there's also money being made from it. Now if that hill was next to a river... you'd get a boatload of hammers and a lot of cash from it all...

Such things are rare though, but if you do get it, it's awesome (now only if you can terraform the terrain)

 

[plesniak]

I've noticed in BTS when I settle on copper I don't get the extra hammer. What is up with that? As far as I know it's still working normally for other resources, just not copper. Founding a city on horses gave me the extra hammer as usual..

Was this an intended change, and if it was well.. why?

I have noticed something a little different here as well. If I were to hook up a mine to copper I get lots of hammers.
If I SETTLE on the resource it seems to produce a little bit less hammers...as there is no mine on the copper??

I am not 100% sure but I think this might be the reason

 

[jray]

If I SETTLE on the resource it seems to produce a little bit less hammers...as there is no mine on the copper??

Sometimes a "little bit" less, and sometimes a lot bit. Everything follows this simple formula: When you settle on a tile with xF/yH/zC once it's stripped of its features (forest/jungle/floodplains/etc.), your city location gets max(2,x)F / max(1,x)H / max(1,z)C. It will never increase, and no improvements are implicitly there or can be explicitly added. So if you want to do hypothecial speculation in advance, you just need to do some arithmetic to figure out the F/H/C of various combinations of resources and terrains.

I like to settle on weak commerce resources without food bonuses, like Fur without a forest or Silk wherever, because then it frees up space for something better. Or I might settle on a non-food resource in a food-starved area. Or sometimes the best city sites for a certain location are all on top of a resource. Otherwise, yeah, it's usually best to avoid settling on resources.

 

[KMadCandy]

*frantically waves* i already linked this once, it has answers to all this stuff. it's really useful, i promise!
the source for answers to your questions about settling on resources of all types on different terrains

this link is to page 2. the top of that page shows what the improvement on the resource will get you if you put a citizen to work on the tile. about 3/4 down the page, there are pictures that show you what you get if you settle directly on the resource instead.

there's a page 1 too which has good info but it has so much info that it makes my brain hurt if i hadn't had enough sleep, which is most days. so i mostly reference page 2 *giggle*.

 

[jray]

*frantically waves* i already linked this once, it has answers to all this stuff. it's really useful, i promise!
the source for answers to your questions about settling on resources of all types on different terrains

Actually, that page has some mistakes. For example, it says you don't get an extra hammer for settling on copper on a grassy hill. But you do-- try it in the worldbuilder (and make sure to give yourself bronzeworking) . I tell ya, the formula I mentioned a couple posts back is how it's coded.

 

[Rusty Edge]

So if I found a city on horse or copper I can get use of it, but if I found a city on dye or spices I'm a moron because I can not build a plantation? In other words if I build a city on a resource is there a chance of me getting less of a bonus due to that?

Maximizing output isn't always the only consideration.

If you are playing Raging Barbarians, or Huge/Marathon/Highlands as examples, building a city on a strategic resource may be essential to prevent it from being pillaged. Without the metal or horses to make replacement defenders and counterattackers, you may lose a city and then a fledgling empire.


Sometimes you're more of a moron if you don't.

 

[plesniak]

Maximizing output isn't always the only consideration.

If you are playing Raging Barbarians, or Huge/Marathon/Highlands as examples, building a city on a strategic resource may be essential to prevent it from being pillaged. Without the metal or horses to make replacement defenders and counterattackers, you may lose a city and then a fledgling empire.


Sometimes you're more of a moron if you don't.

I see the AI do it often during the course of a game, even the barbs sometimes do it. I have even heard that the birds and the bees do it. So I figure it is imperative that I do it occasionally also!!

 

[Enigma256]

I have even heard that the birds and the bees do it.

love that song

 

[bob_x]

Some resources aren't all the impressive, this includes a lot of the Plantation resources and Wine. It's no great loss if you settle on them. Gems also aren't that great.

OTOH, a city sucks without at least one food resource, you never want to settle on a food resource.

 

[Antilogic]

What? Resources like Silks and Dyes can give you a money bag. That's good. Sugar, on the other hand...it's not too impressive, but they typically appear en masse so you can convert that settlement to a specialist city with not much problem.

Wineries don't give big bonuses...I just settled on a wine resource in one of my games, actually, because it was a good spot. Although, whenever possible, I try not to settle on resources.

 

[arstal]

One advantage- spies don't destroy the resource making you lose production of units.