Overall, I agree that Civ V: Brave New World expansion has a better diplomacy system than the GC 2 model, though, like you, I don't think it's perfect. The thing that is usually missing from 4X and RTS diplomacy is betrayal. I mean, look at the history of human diplomacy. Betrayal is a major factor: Shifting alliances (sometimes in the middle of a war or even a battle), backstabbing, subterfuge, assassination, economic sabotage, propaganda, etc. While some of these appear in games, there is a tendency to make AIs too trustworthy. If you make a non aggression pact, the AI is likely to stick to it. How many of these were violated in real human history? Civ V introduced this to a limited extent, but it's still not "realistic." I mean, why would Russia annex the Crimea when they have a treaty recognizing Ukraine's borders? Come on, humans don't do that anymore. Right??? In diplomacy, I would like to have some friends like the U.S. and U.K., but I also want the Russian's and China's that you can never really trust and the North Koreas that just can't be trusted at all, but you still have to deal with.
Colony trading - Why do games include this option. Check with your QA team. Does anyone use this feature other then to exploit the AI. Probably not. City trading should only happen either when the Attacker is Have it as a possibility to force broker a peace treaty but normal trading it should not be possible.
I agree that this is realistic when trying to make or keep the peace, but otherwise is a way to exploit the AI. Again, looking at human history, how willing are real nation states to give up their territory?
Ship Trading - Most games give the player the ability to choose what ships to trade and you usually get money for it. Not very exciting. It's also does not make much sense. Yes sir I'll buy the contents of your trash can for a nice sum of credits. Instead have the AI evaluate your ships and ask you to build ships for them for credits. Like a work oder or quest system. Also, trading away your standing Army doesn't make that much sense.
I'm going to disagree, here. I use ship trading as a means to supply arms to another player (like Lend-Lease before the U.S. entered WWII). For instance, I like to keep the Drengin alive as long as possible (to keep the other AIs busy so they won't go to war with me) and will often feed them ships (always with a flaw that makes them vulnerable to me) to feed their war(s). This is an example of the betrayal I mentioned above. I may have peace, economic, and research treaties with other major AIs, but I'll feed the Drengin warships to keep those major AIs weaker and distracted. And, feeding the Drengin warships means they usually won't war on me. The AIs need that kind of sneaky.
The idea of orders is interesting. For a good ally (like the U.K.) I might make and deliver Apache attack helicopters, but for Iraq . . . well, I'm not going to give them my best stuff (I mean, who knows if they might just abandon the equipment and allow a major terrorist organization to capture it--I'd hate to have to face and destroy my own equipment). I would rather choose what I give than fill orders, but both could have a place.
Since the resources haven't been integrated yet, I'll wait to see what the devs do with them.
As always, my opinion.