City placement and resources

ybrevo · October 3, 2009, 11:59

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 · October 3, 2009, 12:14

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 · October 3, 2009, 14:11

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 · October 3, 2009, 17:16

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 · October 3, 2009, 17:33

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 · October 3, 2009, 18:14

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 · October 3, 2009, 18:52

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 · October 4, 2009, 20:44

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 · October 5, 2009, 06:50

Originally Posted by 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.

Pyramids.

rah · October 5, 2009, 08:22

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 · October 5, 2009, 15:26

Originally Posted by wodan11

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 · October 6, 2009, 10:15

Originally Posted by Theben

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 · October 6, 2009, 15:03

Originally Posted by Blaupanzer

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

It made sense to me.

Boracks · October 6, 2009, 16:03

Originally Posted by Blaupanzer

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 · October 8, 2009, 11:41

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.

rah · October 8, 2009, 12:05

Yeah, if copper and horses aren't in my cap's BFC, then that's the focus of cities 2 and 3.

Oerdin · October 15, 2009, 01:36

Originally Posted by 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.

Yeah, generally it is not a good idea as the +5 hammers from that bronze or iron mine sure do come in handy early game. That said in MP games people will do it, especially if it is on top of a hill because human players will often play on small maps with more civs then resources so neighbors will go after those metal mines; often as soon as the city is founded because they don't want to wait and let you build up all those axemen.

Ming · October 15, 2009, 01:53

It is a good way to keep from getting pinched... and stops the pillage crap

I always have a city or two in MP that is pretty worthless, and only serves the purpose of making sure I have a key strategic resource.

There is nothing worse than having a couple of creative civs as your neighbors... You don't want them getting your resourses.

rah · November 6, 2009, 16:23

No the worse is being creative and cheating a touch to try to get the primo city placement but the special resource is two out and having someone else come up and build right next to it in the first 5 turns before you even get control of it. Sometimes GREED is an evil thing.

Thoth · November 7, 2009, 01:34

Sometimes it can work to your advantage (at least in SP). If you are creative libraries are only a 2 pop whip and theaters are only a one pop whip. You might not flip the city if enough units are stationed in it, but you have a huge edge in the cultural battle. (note that if you try this against one of the aggressive AI's you'd better be chopping and whipping an army elsewhere.

)

rah · November 9, 2009, 10:28

But if you're not and that was your play for the strategic resource and now you don't have it and didn't research archery, since you figured you'd have chariots or axeman, the game can be short (in MP). At least in SP you have a little more time to prepare or make alternate arrangements.

Ming · November 9, 2009, 11:04

The AI is does love to build cities right on the edge of your cultural border and try to take squares/resources away from you. Granted, sometimes you just look at the new city and start counting down the turns to when it will become yours. I just love when the AI finds that open area in the middle of your territory and for some reason thinks it's a great place to put a city

But if the other civ is creative, and you aren't, you have to be really careful early in the game to protect your resources.

rah · November 9, 2009, 11:40

Originally Posted by Ming

The AI is does love to build cities right on the edge of your cultural border and try to take squares/resources away from you. Granted, sometimes you just look at the new city and start counting down the turns to when it will become yours. I just love when the AI finds that open area in the middle of your territory and for some reason thinks it's a great place to put a city

As long as they put it in the right spot.

But yeah, it's just a matter of time.

Ming · November 14, 2009, 19:13

I had a game the other day where I was creative and "cheated" on some horses. My city expanded and covered the square... and there didn't seem to be any problems. Then a non creative AI walked up, and built right next to the square before I could expand beyond the BFC. And the game turned into a culture war about that square.

However, I finally resorted to the proven method for winning culture battles... I just destroyed the city

rah · November 16, 2009, 10:45

Yeah, always the best way. Sometimes you have to be careful when you digest half of another civ and get bogged down and decide to make peace for a 10 turns to regroup. While the conquered cities are waiting to come out of revolt, if there's a spot that's not covered by the 2 square rule they can slip another settler in and reclaim the culture which might lead to some starvation in a city coming out of revolt. (and if you're not in slavery to take advantage of the excess pop, it can be lost before the 10 turns end for you to whack their new city.