Akka
Moody old mage.
The binary ressources were my first big grip about good ideas that suffered of an implementation that killed their potential.
The second is the trade and diplomacy.
Trading and diplomacy are good things. Trade is incentive to play peacefully, and so is an alternative to war (as you don't trade with someone you're at war with). Diplomacy adds to immersion, as you interact with other civilizations. Both adds another dimension to the game.
Though, there is one thing that really kills the very principle of trade and negociations in the game. That's the relative evaluation of offering,
ie the fact that when you negociate, the value of what you offer is altered by the total value of what you have.
In other words, if you're rich, and you offer 100 gold, they are worth less than if you're poor and you offer 100 gold. The effect is that, as soon as you start to be powerful, other civ won't trade with you unless you give then insanely high amount of goods.
For some things, it could make sense : if you trade ressources to a country three times smaller, it could be logical that the country ask 1 unit of iron AND 1 unit of coal AND 1 unit of horses, to supply your whole empire with 3 units of salpeter. But considering how the ressource system is done, it just does not work, as 1 unit is exactly sufficient to supply a whole civ, but no more, whatever its size.
For other things, it does not even remotely makes sense : when I offer 100 gold and I ask 110 gold in exchange (yes, it's pointless, the result would be the same if I gave away 10 gold, but it's just to show the principle) and the advisor say "they will feel insulted by the deal" just because my civ is so richer than the other that they estimate my 110 gold to be not even half as valuable as their 100 own, well, I feel something is wrong.
I know that this system was made to prevent the stronger to become even more dominant. I know that for some people, it means "more challenge".
Still, I consider it severely hamper the game.
First, it removes nearly completely the diplomacy and trading. Sorry, but when I know I'll have to offer two tech, one strategic ressource, 50 gpt and 100 gold for just a map, I don't even bother to try to negociate any deal, as I'll be plainly ripped off. The whole trade system becomes useless.
The only times where it'll be used, will be right at the start of the game, when civs are about the same strenght and deals fairly, and in times of extreme needs (I NEED a MPP or a particular ressource). It's a bit bad to restrict the whole system to less than one tenth of the game lenght :-/
Second, it makes the war the only reasonable solution, which is quite a strange idea.
When I know I'll have to offer an arm and a leg to get oil from a 4-cities civ, while I'll just have to dispatch one tiny part of my armed forces to crush it and takes what I want, well then here comes another war, and another civ disappear from the map.
So I would like to see an evaluation that consider what you ask and what you give in absolute terms, not in relative to your size. Could make trade reenter the game.
The second part of my complains about the diplo system and evaluation, is how civs start to despise you when you grow strong.
Firstly, the feeling "me vs the world" is frustrating and annoying. It often is perceived as a way to "cheat" against the player to make the victory harder, while in fact it just makes it tedious by having to crush each single civ in war.
Second, directly following the previous feeling, it just feels "like in a game", and detract from immersion. As all the AI acts like that, they feels like, well, AI, rather than individual leaders.
Same things for the sneak attacks or the invasions that AI launch when they start to have too much units. They attack ANYONE or ANYTHING, regardless of their respective power. Stupid, anti-immersive, and annoying. Wars should be started for a reason, not just because an AI have too much military idle. Especially considering they have plenty of building lacking in its cities at this moment...
The last part of my complaint is that there is plenty, plenty, plenty things that worsen the attitude of a civ toward another, without cap. And still, there is very few things that improve this attitude, and they are all capped. What happens is that in the end, everyone hate everyone. Quite dull.
A good thing would be to have ways of improving the opinions of other civs. Being allied, rather than just giving a temporary and fixed boost to attitude, should simply improve it by 1 point every turn the alliance is kept. A successful trading could offer a +3 attitude when the deal is completed, and so on.
The second is the trade and diplomacy.
Trading and diplomacy are good things. Trade is incentive to play peacefully, and so is an alternative to war (as you don't trade with someone you're at war with). Diplomacy adds to immersion, as you interact with other civilizations. Both adds another dimension to the game.
Though, there is one thing that really kills the very principle of trade and negociations in the game. That's the relative evaluation of offering,
ie the fact that when you negociate, the value of what you offer is altered by the total value of what you have.
In other words, if you're rich, and you offer 100 gold, they are worth less than if you're poor and you offer 100 gold. The effect is that, as soon as you start to be powerful, other civ won't trade with you unless you give then insanely high amount of goods.
For some things, it could make sense : if you trade ressources to a country three times smaller, it could be logical that the country ask 1 unit of iron AND 1 unit of coal AND 1 unit of horses, to supply your whole empire with 3 units of salpeter. But considering how the ressource system is done, it just does not work, as 1 unit is exactly sufficient to supply a whole civ, but no more, whatever its size.
For other things, it does not even remotely makes sense : when I offer 100 gold and I ask 110 gold in exchange (yes, it's pointless, the result would be the same if I gave away 10 gold, but it's just to show the principle) and the advisor say "they will feel insulted by the deal" just because my civ is so richer than the other that they estimate my 110 gold to be not even half as valuable as their 100 own, well, I feel something is wrong.
I know that this system was made to prevent the stronger to become even more dominant. I know that for some people, it means "more challenge".
Still, I consider it severely hamper the game.
First, it removes nearly completely the diplomacy and trading. Sorry, but when I know I'll have to offer two tech, one strategic ressource, 50 gpt and 100 gold for just a map, I don't even bother to try to negociate any deal, as I'll be plainly ripped off. The whole trade system becomes useless.
The only times where it'll be used, will be right at the start of the game, when civs are about the same strenght and deals fairly, and in times of extreme needs (I NEED a MPP or a particular ressource). It's a bit bad to restrict the whole system to less than one tenth of the game lenght :-/
Second, it makes the war the only reasonable solution, which is quite a strange idea.
When I know I'll have to offer an arm and a leg to get oil from a 4-cities civ, while I'll just have to dispatch one tiny part of my armed forces to crush it and takes what I want, well then here comes another war, and another civ disappear from the map.
So I would like to see an evaluation that consider what you ask and what you give in absolute terms, not in relative to your size. Could make trade reenter the game.
The second part of my complains about the diplo system and evaluation, is how civs start to despise you when you grow strong.
Firstly, the feeling "me vs the world" is frustrating and annoying. It often is perceived as a way to "cheat" against the player to make the victory harder, while in fact it just makes it tedious by having to crush each single civ in war.
Second, directly following the previous feeling, it just feels "like in a game", and detract from immersion. As all the AI acts like that, they feels like, well, AI, rather than individual leaders.
Same things for the sneak attacks or the invasions that AI launch when they start to have too much units. They attack ANYONE or ANYTHING, regardless of their respective power. Stupid, anti-immersive, and annoying. Wars should be started for a reason, not just because an AI have too much military idle. Especially considering they have plenty of building lacking in its cities at this moment...
The last part of my complaint is that there is plenty, plenty, plenty things that worsen the attitude of a civ toward another, without cap. And still, there is very few things that improve this attitude, and they are all capped. What happens is that in the end, everyone hate everyone. Quite dull.
A good thing would be to have ways of improving the opinions of other civs. Being allied, rather than just giving a temporary and fixed boost to attitude, should simply improve it by 1 point every turn the alliance is kept. A successful trading could offer a +3 attitude when the deal is completed, and so on.
(Check 
