[Should I...] Build a City on Top of a Resource?

thele

Chieftain
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
40
One of the best locations I see is next to a river on top of WHEAT.

Is there a downside to building on top of a resource?

-The Le
 

RD-BH

Human
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
818
Location
Formerly: Missouri, USA
Hmm, the answer is situational. On higher levels I like placing cities on strategic resources.
(prevents the ponies from treading down my iron)
Wheat is a good food source for parking GP improvements,
... but farms next to rivers get pretty big as you tech.
... and population = :c5science:
 

Agent Cooper

Lynch's Creation
Joined
Jul 31, 2006
Messages
773
Location
Denmark
Wheat next to a river is one of the only resources I would never settle a city directly upon. There must be a nearby tile that is almost as good to settle upon and keep the wheat tile for a farm.

There's no problem in general with settling on luxuries or strategic resources (every situation is...well, situational:) ). But you might need a corresponding tech to access it, like Calender or Mining etc.
 
Joined
May 17, 2011
Messages
2,705
Wheat next to a river is one of the only resources I would never settle a city directly upon. There must be a nearby tile that is almost as good to settle upon and keep the wheat tile for a farm.

There's no problem in general with settling on luxuries or strategic resources (every situation is...well, situational:) ). But you might need a corresponding tech to access it, like Calender or Mining etc.

Do you still get the adition gold fields it provides when you work on it?

For example suggar gives you: some food and 2 gold i thinx will it be automaticly worked?
 

LostInTime

Warlord
Joined
Feb 13, 2011
Messages
161
One of the best locations I see is next to a river on top of WHEAT.

Screenshot ;)

But usually riverside wheat is a square you want to work in a new city, so I'm not sure why it's such a good idea settling on top of it. Settling on top of luxuries and strategic resources is a good idea since you get them up faster and can sell/use them at once.
 

northernlights

Chieftain
Joined
Oct 23, 2010
Messages
46
On Deity I will usually settle my first (often only) city on top of a luxury resource, preferably a mining one on a river.

Having 450g+ on turn 15 often means you can have both a Library and Granary up for the turn writing is finished (tech mining, pottery, writing) which enables you to have your city production focused for NC building and still grow (slowly).

Thats just my first city, further settled cities employ a more long term focus so I will look for ideal city placement (food, hills, # of luxuries closeby etc) which usually will not mean settling on top of a luxury resource.
 

joncnunn

Senior Java Wizard
Retired Moderator
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
8,621
Location
Missouri
Usually the only resources I end up settling directly on are strategic resources I didn't know existed at the time I founded the city.

It will just take a few more worker turns to get that new resource. After which the gold is then available and in most cases the tile yield will be higher if it was improved and worked rather than being settled upon so eventually you will make it up.
 

vexing

knows
Joined
Dec 24, 2010
Messages
2,668
Is there a downside to building on top of a resource?

you can't work that tile. say you settle on a riverside floodplains wheat. your city starts at 3 base food instead of 2, but you're working a 2 food tile instead of the 3 food tile. what have you gained?

there are times you'll want to settle on luxuries or strategic resources, but non strategic resources are generally never a good idea.
 

Deau

Emperor
Joined
Apr 17, 2011
Messages
1,367
Location
Quebec, Can
On Deity I will usually settle my first (often only) city on top of a luxury resource, preferably a mining one on a river.

Having 450g+ on turn 15 often means you can have both a Library and Granary up for the turn writing is finished (tech mining, pottery, writing) which enables you to have your city production focused for NC building and still grow (slowly).

Thats just my first city, further settled cities employ a more long term focus so I will look for ideal city placement (food, hills, # of luxuries closeby etc) which usually will not mean settling on top of a luxury resource.

I still very often settle cities #2-#4 atop a luxury. Making the happiness instantly availible allows me to not stop growing...and usually I just sell it right away anyway and push a new CS to ally for the happiness. Obviously that's more of a REX without enough workers to sustain each new city but then I get to pump them out earlier to snag better locations. I have to agree though settling atop a lux has become the bread and butter of any of my deity starts.

as for apocalypse's question :

You get bonuses that are listed as "for the resource" but you don't get bonuses that are listed as "for the improvement on this resource". For example, if you build atop a deer, you won't get the +1 food from camp and won't get the +1 gold to camp at...economics I think it is? On the other hand though, if you build a granary, your city will then provide the +1 food to that deer tile even though you are settled uppon.

So in the particular case of sugar. A base riverside grassland sugar gives 2 food 3 gold. Improved with plantation it's 2 food + 4 gold early in the game and 2 food + 5 gold in the late game. If you settle atop it, you giveup on the extra +1 or +2 gold from the improvement. On the other hand, you make it instantly availible uppon teching calendar and thus get significant early game gold bump from trades which really offsets the overtime losses.
 

lilnev

King
Joined
Aug 22, 2006
Messages
949
Is flood plains considered an overlay and removed by settling like it was in IV? Do you end up with just desert Wheat, and no bonus food to the capital?

In general settling on a resource isn't a bad thing if it maximizes your ability to claim luxuries. That's what counts most.
 

Lokos451

Chieftain
Joined
Dec 23, 2010
Messages
77
I don't believe they handle the base production of the city tile in the same way at all as they did in cIV. For one thing, flood plains are no longer a bonus...just the same as a green river tile there. For another, the city can still gain the bonus stats for a luxury to the base city amount, or for a hill. This is essentially why it's worth it to build on a lux/strat resource now. You lose 1 point of something early, and another late for not developing it, but gain an improved base city yield and more rapid development.
 

Bibor

Doomsday Machine
Joined
Jun 6, 2004
Messages
3,046
Location
Zagreb, Croatia
I abhor the idea of placing cities on good production or food tiles, but have no problem placing them on "gold" tiles (cotton etc.).
 
Top Bottom