City placement and resources

[ybrevo]

A simple question from me this time: If you place a new city directly on a tile with a resource, will you get access to it automatically without the normally necessary improvement? Eg. if it is copper, you will not need a mine, if it is bananas you will not need a plantation etc.?

If so, is it a good idea to do so, or is it better to find a spot near it?

ybrevo

[Ming]

Yes... you get instant access to the resource as long as you have the "tech" required to use it.
However, you do not get the food or hammer bonus.
As far as whether it's good to do so or not, that depends on the circumstances. If it is the best place to build to take advantage of other resourses or terrain, and you don't need the food/hammer bonus (if any), sure, why not.
Also, if it is a strategic/war resource and it's near another AI's culture zone, you might want to build on it to make sure you don't lose it later to culture.
Also, if it's a strategic resource and it's early in the game, you might want to build on it to get instant access for building stronger units, like axemen, swordsman, chariots, whatever.

Most of the time, I don't build directly on a resourse unless there is a GREAT reason to do so.

[Alex]

I also avoid to build cities directly on strategic resources for the reasons Ming mentioned above. But I noticed the AI likes to do it a lot, maybe to avoid losing it to culture later on? If this is true, then it is rather smart - because I usually play a better culture game than the AI.

[Boracks]

I can only think of two resources I've put a city right on top of. Early game, copper, if I need axemen right now! And late game, oil, if I need destroyers right now!

Most of the time, as noted above, its not worth losing the resource bonus.

[Ming]

I hear you... as I said, there would have to be a real good reason to do so
Like not having copper, iron has just appeared, and you have a neighbor who has mounted units NOW

[slnz]

There's plenty of good resources to settle on, that don't give that much of a bonus otherwise:

Plains Ivory: 2 hammers from city tile, normally it's just a grass hill anyway
Grass Sugar: 3 food from city tile, same +1 bonus as working it improved compared to working it unimproved
Unirrigatable Grass Rice: same as above
Spice, Silk, Dye, Incense, Wine: if the spot is clearly better than any of the surrounding tiles, go for it - the yield bonuses don't warrant a sub-par city location.

Also consider that if you're financial and settle on a resource that gives an unimproved yield bonus of +1 like wine or dye, you will get 3 from the city tile.

Usually settling on other resources is a bad idea as already noted.

[trev]

Early in the game I will often build a city on stone or marble if I want it urgently to assist a wonder build. Oil is very good to build on, source cannot be bombed by guided missiles which create havoc in late game.

[Theben]

Settling on marble or copper is probably all I'd do if I need those resources NOW. Stone is rarely such a necessity that I'd settle on it. But doing so can save a lot of time building a quarry and road, which can be the difference between getting the Oracle or not.

[wodan11]

Settling on marble or copper is probably all I'd do if I need those resources NOW. Stone is rarely such a necessity that I'd settle on it. But doing so can save a lot of time building a quarry and road, which can be the difference between getting the Oracle or not.

Pyramids.

[rah]

Yeah, I've seen Trev settle on stone to assist an early pyramids run.

I agree with most said here. I usually don't but there are exceptions as noted.

[Theben]

Pyramids.

If I really want it, I get it in SP. And so far my MP friends haven't tried for it too hard. That may change after this last game where I've (natives) been outteching the FIN guys.

[Blaupanzer]

If I really want it, I get it in SP. And so far my MP friends haven't tried for it too hard. That may change after this last game where I've (natives) been outteching the FIN guys.

How does this relate to settling on a resource or two?

I settle on resources early in the game if they are out in the open, lacking defensible terrain either under them or around them. This is because I turn on raging barbs, and an all-direction threat, especially to strategic resources, is almost impossible to stave off. (If the barbs capture/extinguish copper, all copper-based units are removed from all cities' building queues. Same for horses.) Can drive me to the edge, so I just build the city on top of the resource. The other time is if I can access two or more additional resources for the city if I build on a stategically-located resource.

[wodan11]

How does this relate to settling on a resource or two?

It made sense to me.

[Boracks]

How does this relate to settling on a resource or two?

Settling on a resource can help get a wonder faster as opposed to waiting to build a quarry and road link.

[Ming]

And that is strong option if your strategy is based on "MUST GET THAT WONDER".

Unless I have a strategic resource in my capitals BFC or might get it quickly in the next culture expansion, my second city is targeting a strategic resource. Now unless stone or marble are near enough to be able plant on the resource and still get the strategic resource, I'm more concerned about the strategic resource. Now, my third city might be placed solely to get stone or marble if I think it's critical... but I'm usually looking for a killer city location, or another strategic resource.