Firstly here are things not mentioned above.
The trade advisor should have a list of all the current trades you have open with the AI. I am very tired of having to go in to diplomacy to see how much turns I have left on to get back my wines.
Also it should be possible for trades to be cancelled peacefully before 20 turns are up. This would involve paying a lump sum fee to the AI. Obviously this would be no trivial amount, and the AI (or whichever side benefitted most from the existing trade) would have the right to refuse any deal, or the one being offered. As a last resort you would just cancel the deal and have your reputation severly damaged (not to mention risk them going to war with you). This would be very interesting in the case of being at war with one AI when one of your two sources of oil runs out. The other source is being traded with another computer opponent. To get it back you'd have to give them most your money or whatever ....
Does the AI ever involve itself with espionage? I've never gotten a message saying that one of Cleopatra's agents was caught trying to steal troop positions. In civ 2 the AI was always active in espionage, not so this time around, and the game is poorer for it. A lot of people complain about the espionage/diplomatic missions, but maybe if the AI took part it'd sort the problem out.
The following are gripes about things missing from civ 2. They are not major omissions, but they helped the game in their own special way.
The first is the demographics screen. Surely as you get an embassy with an opponent you should be able to see their demographics? Or at least the ones they are ratest highest in? I am aware that the graphics of the demographics screen would not permit you to see any other information, but then change it.
Also; in civ 2 your military advisor would give you a list of all the units lost in all the wars ever (provided you had embassies with the appropriate civs). I know this affects the gameplay in no way, but it was a good screen to look at as the game neared it's end, and you could clearly see when each civ had it's major wars from it.
To all the people complaining about the resources. The way I see it is that if you are to have more of each type of resource you would eliminate the role resources play in the current game. If I note that one of my enemies has a few supplies of oil (before they get refining) I will not hesitate to go to war if I have one or less oil in my teritory. This helps make the game what it is. Wars over resources would end if everybody had every resource.
One way to counter this is to create more types of resources so that everybody will miss maybe one or two throughout history, but if you do this the map will become a sea of resources. All messy and cluttered. The resources are fine I say.
I played diety level for the first time yesterday (for the laugh). I was slaughtered. The AI was pumping out units quicker than you can say "production bonus". By the time I had created two warriors the AI already had a settler AND a spearman going forth to claim new lands, not to mention the spearman in their capital. Back to monarchy for me.
The AI does need to be recreated so that it wins on diety because it plays better, not because it cheats. I concede that the AI does have a need to cheat, but at the level it does in civ 3 as opposed to civ 2? Civ 2 was fine. The AI did cheat, but it trashed me because it played better and made better decisions as well as because it cheated.
In the poll I voted for ttwo options.
1)
Culture flipping after conquest impossible if #armies > #city's pop.
I agree with this to an extent. A communist civ would have the ability to build improvenments in the new city and take it's population down to manageable levels at the same time.
How about: If the city you have taken over has a population greater than size 6 you must have the population number + 1 units in the city to protect it. And then the probability of losing for a smaller force would be related to the size of the force you had in it.
Example: a size 12 city with 7 units has a much greater chance of being lost than a size 12 city with 12 units. And a size 12 city with 13 units cannot be lost through culture to the civ you have captured it from, without the AI using propaganda.
For a city of size less than or equal to 6 you would need a full 6 units garrisoned to prevent defection. And again a city of size 5 with two units garissoned has a greater chance of being lost than a city of size 5 with 5 units garrisonned.
2)Food trade between cities in Domestical or Trade Advisors' screen.
I fully agree with this. It would allow a civ to fully exploit the productivity of a city build in the hills, with the traded food coming from cleared jungles. And again it is something I'd like to see the AI take advantage of aswell.
Also how about food trade between civs? Due to the nature of the game it couldn't happen as often as it would in real life, but their would be valid chances.
Example is a large city (with strong defences) under siege to a strong army. If there is not enough food in the civs other cities to help supply the city (as the opposing army are occupying their ground) it could trade with an allied civ at an exorbitant price.
Changing governments should probally also speed this proceess along somewhat.
