1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Settling on resources?

Discussion in 'Civ4 - Strategy & Tips' started by TheScoutBomb, Jan 17, 2009.

  1. TheScoutBomb

    TheScoutBomb Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2008
    Messages:
    14
    If I settled a city on a resource could I still gain access to it? Sitsiutil settled on top of copper in one ALC game so I'm wondering how exactly does that work?
     
  2. ParadigmShifter

    ParadigmShifter Random Nonsense Generator

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2007
    Messages:
    21,810
    Location:
    Liverpool, home of Everton FC
    You get instant acces to it as soon as you unlock the tech required to normally improve the tile. You don't get as big a tile bonus however as improving it. But, it can't be pillaged either.

    I rarely do it unless settling on a resource enables me to work more food resources in the fat cross.

    Somtimes it is worth settling on jumbos (they tend to clump together, you gt 1 hammer in the city tile), or calendar food resources.

    If you are quechua rushing it is good to move your settler to settle on a plains hill with marble or stone, 3 hammers straight away ;)
     
  3. slobberinbear

    slobberinbear Ursine Skald

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,657
    Location:
    Foraging in your trashcan
    Settling on a resource gives you access to the resource once you learn the appropriate technology. However, you can never gain the production from the improvement you would normally put on the tile; i.e., settling on copper does not give your city tile the production of a copper mine. You only get the base (unimproved) value of the resource added to the tile's production if you settle on it.

    Settling on a resource is a good idea if you are in a hurry, if you are worried about the resource being pillaged, or if you just have to have a city there for some reason. In my Jamaica game (see sig below), I settled on a gems tile in order to have a better long-term city.

    For the most part, though, you should try to settle on non-resource tiles, and indeed, it's often best to settle on the worst tile, because the city tile produces the same whether it's desert, ice, plains etc. underneath.
     
  4. Single Malt

    Single Malt Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    349
    Location:
    Ireland
    When settling on a resource you get access to the resource if you have the pre requisite tech for it. Example, settling on cows will give you access to the +1:health: benefit of cows, if Animal Husbandry has been researched/traded for.

    Edit: Seems several of us answered with the same amswer at the same time:blush:
     
  5. UWHabs

    UWHabs Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,439
    Location:
    Toronto
    It's usually best done if settling on the resource is just the best city spot for the area, or if you have the case like a desert iron square - it sucks anyways even with a mine, so settling on it doesn't usually cost you.

    Settling on a plains ivory is good, since the square would otherwise only be 1 food 3 hammers with a camp on it, but settling on it gives you the 2 hammers from it off the bat, which is never bad to get.
     
  6. DMOC

    DMOC Mathematician

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2007
    Messages:
    5,594
    Another nice tile to settle on is grassland sugar. It's like settling on top of a floodplain, but getting an extra food in the city center and not getting unhealthiness! :goodjob:

    In general, I try to avoid settling on top of resources unless their "improved yield" is quite minor.
     
  7. vicawoo

    vicawoo Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,226
    Settling on ivory is another item on my overrated list.

    Settling on plains is good because you get +1 hammers. If you worked it normally, it would be 4 food at the price of two food, so you you're giving up 2 food for three hammers if you don't settle it. Plains ivory and grassland hills are +3 hammers at the cost of 1 food, (so for two food you can get 6 hammers). So in the case of ivory, you're giving up one food for two hammers (and that other food compared to plains/hills can be used to work a grassland hill).

    In short, if you had two plains ivories and a plains hill, you could settle the plains hill and work the two ivories (0 net food, 8 hammers) or settle the ivory and work one plains hill (0 net food, 5 hammers).
     
  8. UWHabs

    UWHabs Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,439
    Location:
    Toronto
    But it depends on location. Yes, if all of them are the same, you're better to settle on the hill (never mind that you get the defense bonuses on it as well). But the choice is often plains ivory or a normal grassland to settle on, and in that case, I'll usually prefer the ivory to get the hammer boost off the bat.
     
  9. vanatteveldt

    vanatteveldt Emperor

    Joined:
    May 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,039
    Location:
    Amsterdam
    Especially if a city site is food starved (and they sometimes are) it can be better to settle on the elephant because you wouldn't be able to afford working it due to lack of food

    Another case are calendar resources in cottage cities, especially next to a river if you're FIN: If you choose between grassland river and calendar river, grassland river is an extra cottage (ultimately 7c1h, 3 off the bat) while calendar is +4/+5c (IIRC, could be one more). If you're fin, the city square becomes 3c, so it is immediately on par (+3 from cottage and +2 from extra city center commerce). This is especially good if you settle the city pre-calendar, as you can start working the cottage immediately and you'd have to wait to improve the resource (or do farm fist plantation later).
     
  10. Skallagrimson

    Skallagrimson Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    2,043
    The one thing that hurts me the most to settle on is a metal mine of any sort. I want the work bonus more than the guaranteed access to it, more times than not.
     
  11. vanatteveldt

    vanatteveldt Emperor

    Joined:
    May 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,039
    Location:
    Amsterdam
    Unless it's something silly like iron on a plain desert tile...
     
  12. KingLoraxII

    KingLoraxII Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Messages:
    76
    Location:
    Michigan
    How about this instance

    If you settle on Stone - you get wheat and two plains cows. If you settle one away from the stone - you lose a cow but get to work the Stone....Settle on the stone or not?

    What I am saying would you rather get another food source in the BFC and not work the resource or work the resource and lose a food source?
     
  13. blitzkrieg1980

    blitzkrieg1980 Octobrist

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    4,899
    Location:
    New Jersey, USA
    Depends how badly I need the stone. If I'm in a tight race for the 'Mids, I'll settle right on top of the stone no matter what. But if getting 'Mids isn't priority or I'll get them early, or 'Mids isn't even a factor, I'd rather work the resource.
     
  14. Single Malt

    Single Malt Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    349
    Location:
    Ireland
    2 food resources should be enough for the city. The other one can be used by another city.
     
  15. Pinďa

    Pinďa Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    Messages:
    38
    What do I get if I settle on top of a desert copper?
     
  16. Htadus

    Htadus A and L's dad

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    3,441
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    2 food, 1 hammer and 1 commerce.
     
  17. Seraiel

    Seraiel Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2011
    Messages:
    7,954
    Gender:
    Male
    You always get the yield of the unimproved ressource, or at least 2 :food: 1 :hammers: 1 :commerce: . You can see that by turning the yield-display on.
     
  18. Htadus

    Htadus A and L's dad

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    3,441
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    But loose the value of a feature such as flood plains. and if that city get razed, that tile become riverside desert.
     
  19. lymond

    lymond Rise Up! (Phoenix Style!) Hall of Fame Staff

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2008
    Messages:
    22,207
    Htadus is right. Another way to look at it in terms of improving your center tile by settling on a resource is "What you see is what you get".

    In other words, a default city center tile is 2F1H1C. So when looking to settle on a resource or other tile with viewable bonus (think Plains Hill) to what the city center tile provides, just look at the yield of the tile and that is what the city center tile will have - no more no less. So, if you settle on a Plains Hill that has 2H viewable unimproved, then the city center tile will be 2F2H1C. If you settle on grassland sugar, which shows 3F viewable unimproved, then the city center tile will be 3F1H1C.

    The one exception to the "What you see is What you get" rule is Financial leaders settling on riverside commerces tiles like Wine or Dyes. In that case, the FIN bonus kicks in once you settle the city such that you have a center tile of 2F1H3C. Thus, a nice little commerce boost from the start.

    Desert tiles always nerf the yields of resources present, reducing food and/or hammers. It can often be a good idea to actually settle on desert resources for this reason if it gives you a better overall city. It won't boost the center tile but it brings the resource online asap and the tile is often not that great to work anyway due to lack of food.
     
  20. yuchai

    yuchai Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2010
    Messages:
    39
    "What you see is what you get" works in general, except for floodplains, which actually gives you no bonus over the original city tile.
     

Share This Page