Hi guys, I'm wondering if you think it's a good idea to make it so that a civic center completely surrounded by the enemy should slowly start losing resources (kinda like the city is starving) Because when Rome was going to capture Carthage; they surrounded the city and attacked only after the city was starving. This has happened a huge amount of times in history, I only gave one example.

Sounds good.

Better, but less hard. The only way to beat the hard AI is get like 50 rams or elephants just send them. I think the towers-fortresses should not be as destructive, that way using normal-champion soldiers is encouraged. That would mean the rams and elephants would have to be weaker, but I don't see anything wrong with that.  

Frankly, I don't think that we should do that. Not argueing from history but from the gameplay perspective: For a game that offers different civs, these need to be balanced so they all remain a valid option to be chosen by the player. Any "less capable/less valueable" civ would simply never be chosen and we can remove it from the game.  But all this while having different characteristics so that specific strategy might be beeded to win a game, e.g. Kush against Rome.

NO, I'm saying that they should be fully covered regardless of what happened in history. (this is the only time you can make an exemption like this)