With single tile cities it will be impossible to include any resources within the city walls. You will have no choice or strategic decision, everything must be vulnerable.
There has been no statement on whether resource tiles will be included in the city limits if it is next to the city hub. For me it depends a bit on what resource it is, but I wouldn't mind terribly if they could be included.
Yes, influence can be expanded but, barring a new mechanism, we will not be able to change its predictable block shape. Personally I think it will be aesthetically horrible but feel free to differ on this. Importantly though it takes away from strategic concerns - cities become entirely predictable and staid with the area and shape they can encompass resources within.
The difference isn't very big. Right now when you place a building on a new tile next to a city, you are just adding a new square block of influence, centered on that building. It just happens to overlap with your previous area of influence. Having the centre of a new block a few tiles further doesn't change much IMO.
Actually I would like that . But I understand we had that discussion long ago and I'm not trying to dust it off. More than anything the game resources needed to implement it are way beyond what I reckon the dev's have got to offer. But it is a question of scale. Teleporting units through a city 'cheaty gamey exploit' - teleporting resources across half a world 'no problem with that'. To send a unit there will take years of game time but we get the resources immediately, huh?
I agree with you here, I just think it is strange to say 'well, apparently resources can be teleported, so it's fine if my troops can too'.
As to the scale of city size to the world map I have some agreement with you. However to me it is a problem of too many cities rather than each city being too large. There should be more wild lands - agreed - but the problem is that within the first 10% of a game the world is completely colonised and territorial borders are bumping up against one another just about everywhere. Reducing the minimum distance between cities is just going to make this worse. Nowhere in the world will a unit be more than a couple of turns from a city. What 'big hostile world'?
Reducing the minimum distance doesn't have to lead to cities everywhere, if the maps are designed properly. But lets say we build 4 cities in a square grid with a minimum of 5 tiles between cities. These four cities cover 1 tile each, and exclude other cities from being build on 17x17 tiles area around them. That is 289 tiles, or one city in 72 tiles. Even with two tile cities, only one in 36 tiles is covered. But this is mostly a balancing and map scripting issue.
As to your point - I don't get it. You want to stop me pressing the 'I win' button? (Why would it be any of your concern?) You can't stop yourself pressing an 'I win' button? (That could be a problem, but not with the game.) You don't like me telling people not to do something they profess to not like? (I would have thought that this was sensible advice.)
It seems to be the last, or some combination of it with a lack of self control or transparency as to your own desires. But I really can't undertand what you are getting at.
Maybe it is in a small part an self-control issue. But I really don't like it when I have to actively force myself not to use the most efficient strategy available.