Cities on top of resources

[]LoL[Harm]

I want to test this but I'm stuck at work. I know building on top of a resource when you don't have the tech to harness it won't give it to you.

However once the tech is gained to harness it, do you gain it? I'm assuming you would.

[QuestGAV]

Yes, I've done it with one of the metals and gotten credit for it.

[fuji]

Yes, as soon as you have the necessary tech you get the resource. I tested this a little while ago with both cows and spices. QuestGAV has done it with metals so it should work with every type.

[daktaklakpak]

But you might lose the extra productions because the city square is always 2 foods plus 1 hammer?

[Martinus]

Originally posted by daktaklakpak
But you might lose the extra productions because the city square is always 2 foods plus 1 hammer?

That's not true - that's why you should try building on plain hills for example - this will get you 2 hammers.

[Scaphism]

Originally posted by Martinus

That's not true - that's why you should try building on plain hills for example - this will get you 2 hammers.

This brings up a question I've been wanting to ask; How important is it to found a city on a plains hill? For example, from your starting position (turn 1) it will take you two turns to move to a plains hill and one to found the city. From what I understand you'll build settlers 5 turns faster (25>20) and workers 3 turns faster (15-12).
It can't be as simple as an even trade though- you're losing out on 3 turns of research for your first tech, but you're gaining 1 extra hammer of long term benefit.

I don't think it's a huge issue for your first city, but becomes a bigger issue for your second and third cities, or any future city really. The extra hammer helps a lot for getting cities up and running.

In general my policy has been: If I see a plains hill and I can get to it on my first turn, move, then settle, even if it costs and extra turn. If I'm not going for an early religion, I might be willing to move two turns (to save 5 on my settler). For my first expansions though, I'm always looking for a plains hill to settle on. It doesn't seem right that only one tile in the game gives the extra hammer benefit.

I've rambled a lot, but to boil it down to one question: How important is it to try and settle on a plains hill?

If I'm missing some basic knowledge that's posted elsewhere, please link me to the relevant threads or PM the link. Thanks.

[Martinus]

My priorities when founding new cities is (i) whether it will have enough (preferably all) workable tiles, (ii) whether it has a sea access or is founded on a major river (this is for trade connection), and (iii) how many resources it has in (a) city radius and (b) forseeable culture radius. Now, if I can get all these and found on a plains hill too, so much the better, but I do not treat it as my main concern.

[baboon]

Originally posted by Martinus
My priorities when founding new cities is (i) whether it will have enough (preferably all) workable tiles, (ii) whether it has a sea access or is founded on a major river (this is for trade connection), and (iii) how many resources it has in (a) city radius and (b) forseeable culture radius. Now, if I can get all these and found on a plains hill too, so much the better, but I do not treat it as my main concern.

Exactly, although I think resources and a river are more important than the rest.

[Martinus]

Yeah, although the way I like founding cities (especially on maps like Inland Sea) is this - I first found 3-4 cities at the mouth of all nearby rivers, securing the coast (and with sailing getting a trade connection for all of them without a need to build the road). Then, I expend into the land by founding inland cities on the same rivers. That way my empire has a trade network from day one, and I can focus on improving the land around my cities, rather than building the roads (I build the roads eventually, for fast troop movement, but it is no longer a priority).