Which tiles give bonus yield if settled on?

[Culture Bomb]

There are some tiles that give a bonus yield to the city plot if you settle on top of them; for example, settling on plains hill gives +1 hammer and settling on wine gives commerce.

Are there any others? And if so, is it generally a good idea to settle on them or settle nearby and wait until you can build the appropriate improvement to gain the resource?

 

[vandermerwe]

Settling on any special resource will give you the basic tile bonus - so any food resource will give your city +1 food, for instance. It also gives you access to the resource, so settling on copper allows you to build axemen. But you'll never be able to improve that resource or (I think) trade it, so you're effectively giving up all the extra hammers / commerce / health / happy that you'd get from improvements for the rest of the game. Can be worth it with (eg) stone or marble, if you want to build Pyramids or Oracle quickly, and where the improved bonus isn't huge anyway; or maybe if you have multiple resources of the same type. But otherwise not usually sensible.

 

[Ghpstage]

Settling on any special resource will give you the basic tile bonus - so any food resource will give your city +1 food, for instance.

Not necessarily, though it often does appear this way. Settling on plains cow, plains wheat and plains deer won't give any bonus for example.

What actually matters is whether the unimproved, cleared tile has a higher yield in one or more of , or than a cities minimum 2, 1 and 1. Anything above that inimum is kept. Looking a at a plains hill, it has 2 meaning your city gets 2 if placed on it, adding stne to the plains hill makes it a 3 tile, and a 3 city if settled.

 

[lymond]

CB - The rule I go by is "What you see is what you get" whether it be a a resource yield or natural tile yield like a Plains hill. If you see 2H you will get 2H in the city center. (The one exception being a Flood Plains since the city basically terraforms the tile)

 

[Manco Capac]

^
Flood plains are not exception because they are classified into the land features and are destroyed along settling just like forests.

The rule is: it must not be a feature; the settling tile output must have either food, hammer or commerce value higher than the base trio from a city: 2 1 1 .

So basically, some tiles offer 3 , some tiles offer 2 or 3 and somes tiles offer >1 .

 

[jordiflor]

I would suggest you to start a dummy game, enter world builder and experiment yourself.
I did upon reading this thread and this is what I concluded:

- Settling on commerce resources results in 2 (3 for Fin leaders), only on riverside tiles.
- Settling on food resources yields 3 only on flat grassland tiles.
- Settling on elephants, marble, stone, horses, copper, iron, coal, aluminum (whenever these resources are revealed) yields 2, only on plains tiles.
- Settling on hill plains adds +1 which can be added to the added by other resources. Therefore, settling on marble/stone/copper hill plains yields 3

 

[reddishrecue]

Settling on some calendar resources gives +1 commerce on cities. Settling on some resources like ivory or marble give +1hammer and settling on healthy resource will give +1 food. Settling on some resources won't give a bonus however like hill grass.

 

[lymond]

^
Flood plains are not exception because they are classified into the land features and are destroyed along settling just like forests.
.

I think we are actually saying the same thing. By "exception", I meant exception to my "What you see is what you get rule". You see 3F but you don't get 3 food, because...as you said...settling the city destroys the flood plain, which is what I meant by terraform.

 

[jordiflor]

is it generally a good idea to settle on them or settle nearby and wait until you can build the appropriate improvement to gain the resource?

Like everything in the game, the best choice is very situational.
Settling on hill plains is almost always a good move, but if you have enough food and no other hills to mine, it will be better to mine that hill for full hammer output.

Settling on wine is also a very good choice (excellent choice for a Fin leader), because its commerce output with a winery isn't extraordinary good. Moreover, you get the surplus commerce right now without having to wait until Monarchy.

Settling on gold or gems isn't good because they commerce output when mined is very high. However, you can be in a position where you won't be able to work three gold mines because lack of food. So, settling on a riverside gold can be an option.

Settling on Marble/Stone is one of my preferred moves, because you don't need to spend 8 turns building the quarry and road, which is enough time for half the Great Wall or the Oracle.

Plains Ivory is near useless. Is elephant meat so unpleasant that thay cannot yield at least +1? I would definitely settle on them.

Settle on strategic resources (Copper, Iron, Horses) if they would otherwise be exposed to cultural flipping.

 

[lindsay40k]

Settle on strategic resources (Copper, Iron, Horses) if they would otherwise be exposed to cultural flipping.

Related: in a recent game, Catherine settled on Horses. City bordered myself and Suryarvarman, both lacking Horses. He DOW'd on her, and invited me to join him. I had a stack poised to take the city, and when I got there Surry had already taken it. I naturally DOW'd him and slaughtered his entire CR-promoted stack with my own CR stack, gaining a massive attack bonus from him being in a city that's in Resistance.

He remained at war with me for the best part of 100 turns, demanding the city for peace even after I'd wiped out four stacks from him and his vassal, got a Castle built in the city, and parked a stack of solid defenders.

Now, was this simply typical AI behaviour when someone sucker-punches a city off of them, they've got a Vassal already to push up their score, and you can't spare the forces to take a few more cities off them to let them know who's boss? Or does the AI place a very high value on cities settled on SR's? If it's the latter, better be warned and reinforce appropriately!

 

[nfw]

Have you tried negotiate? You might be able to haggle it down to 50 gold.

Or you can take a few more his cities and he'll be much more reasonable.

 

[Sisiutil]

But you'll never be able to improve that resource or (I think) trade it, so you're effectively giving up all the extra hammers / commerce / health / happy that you'd get from improvements for the rest of the game.

Just correcting this as I don't think anyone else did. Settling on a resource automatically gives you access to the resource provided you have the required technology, so yes, it does provide the happy and/or health benefit, and yes, you can trade it. What you're giving up is the food/hammer/commerce bonus a nearby city would glean from working the improved tile. Therefore, settling on top of a high-yield tile (such as corn, gold, etc.) should ideally be avoided. Not that this stops the AI from doing it every now and then.

I often like to see if I can settle on a desert, tundra, or snow tile if one is in the vicinity as they provide little or no resources on their own, but plunking a city on top of one provides the automatic food/hammer/commerce yield of the city tile itself.

 

[Kallikrates]

I should remember the settling on marble/stone move. Often these tiles are not that great (frequently desert) and the saved turns could make the difference getting an early wonder.

I think settling on a resource should give a little more bonus, not only in combination with special terrain, like one hammer, food or trade extra regardless of terrain.
I also miss some terraforming options. O.k., it may be realistic that tundra, ice and desert just suck, but you can actually irrigate the desert in reality (and one could do so in CIV II). Some tech (like biology) could unlock desert irrigation.

Anyway, there seems to be an odd pattern of resource distribution. Oil in the desert and deer in the tundra make sense, but why are marble and silver very frequently located in subpolar regions? Stone in the desert? Klondyke was a *gold* rush, for all I remember... and I have never heard of marble from Norway...