just a couple of unclarities...

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by MightyTiny
4) No, that's not a bug - it means that you are giving away the corn for nothing in return. Victoria probably demanded the corn as a tribute earlier, and you agreed - either that, or you gave it to her as a present.

I'm think it refers instead to the fact that he traded his last corn resource to Victoria (the 0 referring to resources available to trade). It looks like he's getting clams in return for it.

The more I think about this, the more I like the crosstrading approach. If he just trades fish for clams, he's got corn, clams and fish giving him health bonuses. By crosstrading the corn, he's still got the same health resources providing bonuses, but he's supplying Victoria with two resources each turn, rather than one. If she breaks the fish/corn trade, he can cancel the clam/corn trade, recovering his corn, then try to trade the fish for clams. Worst case scenario is that he can't, in which case an existing fish/clam trade would have probably been broken anyway. The net effect is no effect on his resource box, and, if anything, a positive attitude effect from "We appreciate the years you have supplied us with resources."

NB: I'm not sure how dependent that attitude aspect is on number of resource turns shared, as opposed to say merely number of turns resources have been shared, but am positive that sharing two instead of one can't hurt the bonus.

[couerdelion]

I believe it is strongly correlated to the “number” of resources traded. I recently gifted two aggressive neighbours with 3-5 resources each and their attitude improved quickly.

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by couerdelion
I believe it is strongly correlated to the “number” of resources traded. I recently gifted two aggressive neighbours with 3-5 resources each and their attitude improved quickly.

I think that's the case, too, in that it's tied to resource-turns or (less likely) resource-years. I just haven't done any rigorous testing of it and wanted to allow the out in case someone had. If we're right, the crosstrading is a great idea for which I see no significant downside.

[guermantes]

Originally posted by Quillan
There are only two practical uses for building improvements (other than roads/railroads) on squares that are outside of a city radius but inside cultural borders: preparation for a city to be founded later or pillage zones. You can build some things like farms and mills in areas where you're trying to squeeze a sub-optimal city into your existing borders before you plant the city, then it will be there when needed. On hostile borders, an invader will stop to pillage improvements you've put down, even improvements that you can't ever work because of distance. It can spread out an army and stall an invasion for the critical 1-2 turns you need to muster a response.

LOL, amazing what things one can learn. I had not yet grasped the aspect that I do not earn income if I build improvements on tiles outside the city radius/fat cross... thanks a lot for that one as well !

[couerdelion]

You only get the food/hammer/commerce benefits from an improvement if you have a population point assigned to that tile

[MrWhereItsAt]

The only things I bother doing with tiles outside the fat cross but within my cultural boundaries is hook up a resource (extra iron, bananas etc that I can trade if I want) and chop forests. Of course, you can chop forests near your cities but outside of your cultural boundaries also.

And as for the corn in screenshot 1 that is connected to the river; to see which tiles are along the river or a lake - if it has fresh water (hover pointer over the tile to see if it does or not) before Civil Service starts spreading water through irrigation channels, then it should already count as connected to said river.

[Crossfire]

[SIZE=1] And as for the corn in screenshot 1 that is connected to the river; to see which tiles are along the river or a lake - if it has fresh water (hover pointer over the tile to see if it does or not) before Civil Service starts spreading water through irrigation channels, then it should already count as connected to said river.

Just make sure it isn't also connected to an Oasis, in which case it isn't so easy to tell.

Hmmm, how's that for funky sentence structure?