make sure to include all of the important things and then use your best judgement...if an idea is contraversial you might want to leave it out or only include it as an optional after thought...there are a few specific things i could nitpick with you on but you have the major things hammered out i think

Improved road & rail rules

Almost every CIV player agrees on the fact that the road & rail rules must be improved. But because of the variety of opinions, this proposal has 2 sections: General Rules (supported by everyone) and Other Improvements (different ideas)

GENERAL RULES

For a better reflection of reality, Civ3 should use 3 ways of transportation: roads, highways and railroads.

Prerequisite technologies:
1. Road – none or Masonry
2. Highway – Automobile
3. Railroad – Railroad

Movement rates:
TM = terrain modifier (just for ex. plains TM = 1; hills TM = 0,6; mountains TM = 0,3)
US = unit speed (ex. Armor US = 3)
RS = railroad speed (the speed of the train transporting the units)

1. Road – 3 x TM x US
2. Highways – 4 x (motorized US), 3 x (non-motorized US)
3. Railroad – flat movement rate (rail speed), the same for all units, which can gradually increase over the time, as new technologies are developed (travelling on RR, the units are assumed to be travelling by train)
(example: steam – 6, diesel – 8, electric – 10, monorail – 12).
After moving on railroad, the unit would still have all of its movement (US) left.
Important: A unit could use only one railroad once per turn.

Trade (money) bonus
Only roads and highways, and only in squares that already generate trade or have tile improvements that generate trade
(ex. One trade bonus for roads, and two for highways)

Shield (mineral, energy) bonus
Only railroads, and only in squares that generate minerals or energy (forest, iron, coal) or already have tile improvements such as coal mines, oil wells, wind mills, solar collectors, etc.

Movement cost
1. For transportation on railroad for all units
For stacked units, the cost will be the same, no matter how many units are being transported. The cost is coming from the train type (diesel, electric, etc)
2. Moving on roads or highways for motorized units only;
The cost will depend only on the type of the unit. For stacked units, the cost should be the sum of all units' cost.

Clarifications
The cost for transportation won’t depend on the terrain type, because this is already included trough the movement rate formula.
The cost should be energy (or something equivalent)

OTHER IMPROVEMENTS

1. Road (highway later) and RR on the same tile.
a) Yes, because it's realistic
b) No, because the map could easily become overcrowded. The players need no more to strategically choose between them (based on movement rate, cost, and so on), and will build them both. Some problems may occur when a unit enters on a tile with both road and railroad on it (how many moves he has?)
2. Modern military units being capable of road (but not RR or highways) and fortress building, at the speed of a settler.
3. Railroads could generate trade bonus through a "Train Station" city improvement.
4. Construction cost
Railroad: 1 shield (the construction of the RR includes the construction of the train, too)
The city where the engineer belongs to allocates 1 shield for RR construction as long the engineer is working on that RR.
5. Movement and borders
a) Moving inside your borders: +1 movement bonus during war (priority for military vehicles) if there are enemy troops on your territory
b) Moving outside your borders: Cost you nothing if you have a "Use railroads " agreement. If you have not such an agreement, you must pay money for the right to use the RR.
Possible problem: makes the game too complicated
c) Moving on enemy’s railroad: You could use an enemy’s RR only after you capture it. A RR is captured if you move a unit (X) on the RR, there are no enemy vehicles between the RR controlled already by you and X, and don’t move X until the next turn. You can not use the RR until the next turn. If X survives, the RR is yours.

Have any of you'll played Railroad Tycoon? How about a Railroad Tycoon style road & rail management..

I mean, you give the settler/engineer the order to build a road/rail to somewhere.

For rail access, there should be stations or platforms which the engineers build on the track... Units must get on a train at a station (cities could be stations by default) and should be allowed to move as many stations forward as there are within 12 spaces.

Stations also make the economy more realistic.. Suppose there's some gold or oil somewhere in the mountains. An engineer can build an mine/oil well on top of it, build a station and connect it with rail. This railroad can connect it to one or more cities and pump resources which are shared between all connected cities.

The stations could come in various sizes.. From small, which only access an area of one square around it, to large, which can access the equivalent of a city radius...

These railways can also facilitate movement of people, migration etc. For example, if a city isn't doing too well (it could be a foreign city), some people could migrate to a connected city...

This stations idea can be extended to air and sea routes.. Engineers should be able to build ports/harbours/airports around the map, stations near them and connect the stations to somewhere.. There could also be s 'superstation' which incorporates port/rail/airport...

From the ports, you could buy/build ships and send them to other ports for trade/passengers..

I have been away for about one week and I haven't seen your responses until now. Since this thread has had the discussion of List vs. EC3 I'll post my concerns here.

I don't know how you plan on presenting the EC3 to Firaxis. The name "Essential Civ3 list" sounds to me like something that all the fans really want, possibly overriding what was in the previous lists. I agree that the ideas in both EC3 and the lists are equally valid, but the title of EC3 just sounds like it deserves preference. And I disagree that most new posters have read the lists. As you say, it's a big document. Hell, I haven't read the whole thing.

So my concern is that EC3 will replace any similar list ideas. If you could present the ideas as a supplement to, as opposed to "instead of", similar list ideas, then this would allay my concerns.

here is a quote from raingoon about the EC3 list a while back

quote: The Essential Civ 3 is not to give Firaxis ideas but rather to be a companion to the 500 page list, a sort of clarification -- by that token, I think it could be a tremendously helpful document.

now as for presenting the list to firaxis...there will have to be a cover letter and basically this cover letter will tell firaxis a few things...

• the process of forming the list
  
• it could give a list of signatures that participated in the EC3
  
• it will tell what the list is all about

here is what the EC3 is all about

• it is not a comprehensive list
  
• it is not a replacement for any list
  
• it is not a stand alone list
  
• it is a prioritized list of suggestions
  
• it is a helpful tool, that try to catch the general feeling of what is important to civ3
  
• it is a list pointing out what areas need the most work
  
• although it does provide some unique new ideas and some specific fixes this list is more about trying to encourage firaxis to be innovative in civ3's game design

now here is the reason why i didn't simply want the list rehashed...since it is a sumpliment to the list, maybe we could mail the EC3 to firaxis and when we do also remail any sections of THE LIST that has a coresponding part in the EC3 List

so if the realtime/firstperson shooter idea from the EC3 makes it then we should send the section of THE LIST that deals with real/firstperson shooters

*note: there is no realtime/firstperson shooter idea in either of the lists...i was just trying to not endorse a specific idea