City placement on Ressource?

[Mariakles]

This may seem like a silly question for which I should know he answer but here goes :

When placing your city, should it go straight on top of the ressource (cow, iron. whatever) or on a square right next to it?

The way I understand this is that the square the city is lying on automatically works this square, correct or not?

[alexman]

Kinda correct. It works the square, but gets two food no matter what. So any food bonus gets lost. It also gets at least one shield, even if the tile normally doesn't get any.

[Theseus]

In general, I try not to put cities directly on resources, unless I am in a real rush for that resource (typically Iron or Horses)... don;t forget that resources all have food, production, and/or gold bonuses, and can be worked.

[Barchan]

I believe that you get two food and one shield for the city square, regardless of the underlying bonus. However, you do get the additional trade bonuses (if any) for the tile you build on. So, building on gold or another luxury will give you the extra trade.

You probably do not want to build on cows, iron, wheat or game because you lose the ability to improve the tile to get maximum production. Building on hills gives you a defensive bonus and gets you two food, but you can't mine it later and thus lose the additional shields. Building on normal grassland and desert is probably the best bet, since you get the maximum food and shield bonus from the tile without having to improve it. Building in a jungle square isn't too bad an idea either, since it'll immediately clear the jungle for you.

[Mariakles]

Thanks guys, this really helps me to understand the placement of cities better.