Thank you all for the feedback! I should explain and elaborate a little:
13. Basically my main concern/issue with how slavery is currently implemented is that is concentrates on
internal side. That is it affects your CIV only. However, historically slavery was a very important "international" factor in that conquered peoples were turned into slaves and/or deported to the conqueror's civilization, or forced to settle elsewhere. Assyrians and Romans certainly come to mind.
So, IMHO, a game mechanic whereby after you capture other civ's city and/or certain units (maybe), it would make sense that you, under certain conditions perhaps (this is all debatable - I am just outlining basic idea here) get to increase either the population of your city/cities or specialist counts (or both) - either directly or indirectly. Directly would mean Total War Style (you get 3 choices when you conquer city, one of them being Send population into slavery - spreading population equally among your cities). Indirectly could be represented by you getting certain number of settler-type units that can be used to increase population of your cities, or perhaps they could become a certain kind of settled specialists (like slave deportees for example). IMHO, the indirect approach would be even better as it gives you more control.
Another thing to note is that way, after you capture a city, which you intend to keep for example, if some % of its population gets converted to slaves that way, then it should reduce the chancel/length of that city rebelling/refusing to work, etc. So it can tie in nicely with Revolutions mod for example (though, of course having those slaves elsewhere in your cities in one form or another would rev-destabilize those cities).
14. Peoples migrated from place to place throughout history, due to a whole variety of factors. I think this whole idea should somehow be addressed better/more deeply. Trading population is just one such idea/implementation.
15. Consider for example one of your cities specializes in Science, and it has several Wonders built to that extent, i.e. Plato's Academy, Academy, Great Library for example. Therefore, the more raw commerce it gets, the higher it's science output will be, since it gets extra boost from those wonders. Therefore, sending more raw commerce to it would make more sense to speed up research. Especially considering that it may be lacking in commerce generating resource/improvements in its vicinity like gold, gems, plantations, etc.; and the reason you built science wonders there was perhaps because it had highest production output and you didn't want your opponents to beat you to that. That's just one example.
As for food and production, it too would make sense:
- It would help cities with little food output to grow faster (i.e. sending food from cities with lots of flood plains to those in Tundra for example).
- It would help cities with small production output actually build things so they are not a few centuries behind.
- It represents realistic workings of economy in real life. For example, Egypt was supplying Rome with grain, and there are countless examples like this.
- It adds deeper level to the game.
- Also, it would make sense to have the expense needed for those "yield trade routes" be proportional to a) distance, b) road/ocean/river access, c) territory type and type of existing agreements (i.e. neutral/hostile, have open borders or not).
16. [BONUSES/RESOURCES] This is somewhat a matter of taste perhaps, but I would prefer bonuses to have a bigger "punch" once they get improved. How is it, for example that Gold is only a iota more valuable than Copper (in terms of
it brings once improved)? Cows are just as good as wheat? No difference between Lead and Iron in production output? Spices are just as valuable as Gold even in modern age? Etc.... You get the idea.