settling on resources

[cronullasharks]

It`s generally advised not to settle on a resource and I can see why..... but a few exceptions come to mind

Corn that adds one food.......settle on it and get the three food plus a commerce plus a hammer

Non river stone....one food , four hammers if quarried . two food two hammers one commerce if settled on (and not having to build the quarry can be handy early)

Possibly rice too where the extra food at the start plus the hammer is great

What do you guys/gals think? Am I missing something?

 

[Refar]

There are axceptions - some maps/situations call for settling on a ressurce. You will do it to get the ressurce quicker, or to make you grasp on it solid. I dont think however that the generalized "Ressource XYZ is better to seetle on" is a good idea.

I.e. with food ressurces you are missing the irrigation Part - A irrigated Rice is worth 5 . Irrigated Corn 6 ... Settling on corn is

 

[cronullasharks]

If corn is six I totally take that back..............but I was sure one of the food resources only gave one extra???????

 

[AfterShafter]

I'll settle on just about anything (gems, silver, or gold would take *quite* the position to get me to do that) if the city location suggests its. If a city has tons of hills, I'll settle on a copper, since it won't need the production... If a city has tons of flood plains, I'll settle on a food resource. You get the idea.

The one thing to consider about your corn/rice example - eventually those will become farms that produce an extra food, with biology... Same deal with the quarry and railroad - +1 bonus. (actually, do quarries get +1 production from railroads? Can't recall, but I seem to remember them getting them)

I'd say the easiest to settle on are plantation resources.. Those never get better with techs - and wouldn't bananas give you a food bonus much like corn? Or river spice/dye give you extra gold?

 

[AfterShafter]

If corn is six I totally take that back..............but I was sure one of the food resources only gave one extra???????

Corn is 6 on a river... 7 on a river after biology Rice and wheat both give 4 non-irrigated.

 

[cronullasharks]

I guess my question was answered..I am missing something.....thanks again never considered railroads or biology which annoys me cause I generally play till the end

 

[AmazonQueen]

Tundra villages that will only be able to work a few tiles I'll often settle on a resource (especially when you get those clumps of half a dozen furs w/o a food source in sight).

 

[Pir Lan Tota]

If I miss the GW, I tend to settle on Iron/Copper, just to make sure the barbs can raze the mine (unless of course they take the city).....other then that, only if the spot is the sweet spot I wanted to build a city, regardless if the resource was there or not, I will stick it there.....

 

[Permanganate]

I onlysettle on resources when I am in desperate, immediate need of that resource, such as copper when I think an enemy rush is imminent.

 

[ChicagoCubs]

I try not to settle on a resource, but here are my exceptions:

1. The ultimate anti-pillaging technique. Usually I only do it for copper, iron, and oil.

2. If settling on the resource will give me a better city location. Sometimes the resource is on the ideal tile for the center of a city. I will take the better city than the couple added food/commerce/hammers from a resource.

 

[Ermak-]

Settling on a resourse is critical. If you are early rusher (in 10 player ffa/multi) U will be in much better spot to settle on a plain hill (extra 1 hammer), on plain hill with stone (extra 2 hammbers), marble on plain hill (extra 2 hammers)- THATS huge if u wanna do warrior/archer rush.

 

[Kark]

I try not to settle on a resource, but here are my exceptions:

1. The ultimate anti-pillaging technique. Usually I only do it for copper, iron, and oil.

Sometimes oil is the only reason for building a city in arctic areas. Settling spot on will prevent those nasty spies from destroying the well while you're in the middle of building an armada of destroyers.

Or you can place a bunch of workers there, enough to build a new well in one turn. But then they can't do anything else.

 

[Sinapus]

If I miss the GW, I tend to settle on Iron/Copper, just to make sure the barbs can raze the mine (unless of course they take the city).....other then that, only if the spot is the sweet spot I wanted to build a city, regardless if the resource was there or not, I will stick it there.....

That's pretty much the only reason why I would settle on a resource: IIRC, not even spies can destroy access to the resource after that point. You have to pretty much capture or raze the city.

 

[Heathen_Penguin]

I agree with ChicagoCubs, but would like to add one more.

3) resource was not visible when I settled (I know its obvious, but now the list is complete. )

Heathen