Settling on Luxury and Bonus Resources

[manu-fan]

Hi,

It seems to me that a good strategy with Civ 6 is to settle on Luxury and Bonus Resources. This gives one more tile for Districts and Wonders etc. What do you think?

 

[callan]

It depends on the specific but it is much more frequently the right choice than it was in 5. There are other considerations though, as some of the minable resources (especially) are very attractive for their production bonus. It's all about finding the right balance I reckon.

 

[manu-fan]

Yeah, it obviously depends, but you're right. It does seem different from Civ 5 in that respect.

 

[Sagax]

Wait, so the city center automatically works the resource it's sitting on? I thought it destroyed the resource completely...

 

[Browd]

Settling does not destroy the resource. What yields you get depends on the yield of the tile before you settle: If the tile has fewer than 2 food and 1 hammer, the tile is topped up to those levels (cities are always minimum 2 food and 1 hammer), and any other type of yield from the tile is preserved (e.g., +1 faith from tobacco). If the pre-settlement tile already has 2 hammers (e.g., plains hill), the settled city will also have 2 hammers (so, city on a plains hill is 2 food and 2 hammers ). Settling on a grassland stone tile is, on the other hand, worthless -- raw grassland stone tile yields 2 food and 1 hammer, and the yield after settling is still just 2 food and 1 hammer -- not only does the stone contribute nothing, but you can't even harvest the stone or build a quarry for an extra hammer.

 

[Baleur]

Wait, so the city center automatically works the resource it's sitting on? I thought it destroyed the resource completely...

Yeah that was something i also heard youtubers say out of their arse, without actually knowing if it was true or not
Happily noticed it myself when playing that it doesnt destroy the resource at all.

 

[Rob Evans]

not only does the stone contribute nothing, but you can't even harvest the stone or build a quarry for an extra hammer.

So it doesn't destroy the resource but it does prevent it form being utilized or cultivated? So in that case it would be preferential to not settle on a resource

 

[Victoria]

It depends.
I settled on Tobacco as it was in the way and I knew I would have additional tobacco elsewhere. Saved a builders hoe and some time. Also sailing a settler up to a piece of tundra with some foxes on it... settle on the furs and forget about it. You now have an extra amenity in 4 cities. This is just like real life. Those furs outposts rarely came to much but made the cities happier.

If your city is full, make a settler so it can grow again, then settle the settler somewhere to get some nice strange things

The settlers I sent were of a denomination I did not like that were causing issues in my empire anyway. Sending them off to the ends of the earth was good for both god and country.

 

[Browd]

As you say, settling on a luxury does connect the luxury (in your example, tobacco) so you are getting 4 Amenities from that luxury from the time you settle the city, even if you haven't researched the required tech to improve that resource (Irrigation, in the case of a plantation resource like tobacco).