Oww, please set my people free mighty Sovereign!

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Actually, more distant cities will cost more to maintain, wheras I believe that overcrowded cities will be less healthy.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[Lancer]

Historicly distant cities supply unique goods, making them profitable. A single shipload of spice being worth many times the value of the ship, etc. Tea from India, tobacco from Virginia. At the time of the American revolution the sale of tobacco supplied 20% of the revenue of the English monarchy.

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by H Tower
yeah, the romans split because Rome was sacked and the western empire taken over by barbarians.

The RE split because the Emperor thought ruling such a large Empire all by oneself was too hard.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Sorry Lancer, I was oversimplifying with my last response.
As I understand things, the new system will work as follows:
The base maintainance cost of distant cities will be greater than for closer cities. However, as with any city, this cost can be reduced by building specific improvements (a much easier task than with the old corruption system), and possibly tech advancement as well. Also, as the population grows, and said population is able to work lucrative squares, then the money it makes will end up possibly more than making up for the costs of maintainance.
The way I see it, this new system kills two birds with one stone-both simulating the very historical system which you highlighted, whilst at the same time having the gameplay effect of slowing ICS (by forcing players to really think about where they place their cities).
Hope that made more sense Lancer.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker

[MattPilot]

I guess the term you all are refering to is a "puppet regime".

I'm all for that.

I really would like to be able to create 'new' civs during the course of a game just to keep the game going and have some more diversity.

I hate it when i'm the only superpower left and only one opponent left.

When creating a puppet regime, your relations with that new 'civ' would be very positive, and over time it would become 'normal'.

Benefits could be that you don't have to manage an empire you really don't want because of to high maintence costs for little return.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
Sorry Lancer, I was oversimplifying with my last response.
As I understand things, the new system will work as follows:
The base maintainance cost of distant cities will be greater than for closer cities. However, as with any city, this cost can be reduced by building specific improvements (a much easier task than with the old corruption system), and possibly tech advancement as well. Also, as the population grows, and said population is able to work lucrative squares, then the money it makes will end up possibly more than making up for the costs of maintainance.
The way I see it, this new system kills two birds with one stone-both simulating the very historical system which you highlighted, whilst at the same time having the gameplay effect of slowing ICS (by forcing players to really think about where they place their cities).
Hope that made more sense Lancer.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker

Yes, that sounds great. The corruption never made much sense the way it was.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by MattPilot
I guess the term you all are refering to is a "puppet regime".

Nooooo, they are "faithful allies and friends"

Originally posted by MattPilot
I'm all for that.

I hate it when i'm the only superpower left and only one opponent left.

When creating a puppet regime, your relations with that new 'civ' would be very positive, and over time it would become 'normal'.

Well, it could be an effect of diplomacy (alliances, forced peace pact, etc.), or a side effect of years of trading (if you really depends from resource or luxuries from a country you have to be friend (e.g. Saudi Arabian) or attack them (I can't think of an example right now ).

Also the "cultural admirer" that in Civ III sometime force a city to divert to your Civ, should be lessened to a better relation of the whole Civ to your, escalating to the last step of a "full friendship" (puppet state).

The diplomatic/spy action to make a city revolting could be back as a propaganda to join the Great Union of country.
Thinking about history, there were Empire and Emperor, made of many kingdoms keeping a King (still a kind of puppet, or a relative of the emperor).

[Addled Platypus]

how could we forget the great splintering of was once Russia's empire


As long as a civ rewards gold for liberating their cities,

if not charge rent

[Boris Godunov]

Am I misunderstanding the usage of the word "cute" in the OP?

[OssomTossom]

Originally posted by Nikolai


The RE split because the Emperor thought ruling such a large Empire all by oneself was too hard.

After I started playing Civ3, I always thought of this split as the Roman emperor at the time building a Forbidden Palace.

[Paddy]

Gifting a group of cities to another nation can add some great twists to a game.

Recently I gave a 5 cities to the an ai nation, giving them a new border with a common enemy. Was a shame they took a bit of time getting some troops up in their though. Although the distraction it provided the enemy allowed a good strike to take place elsewhere.

All a lot of fun also some sadness when considering the loss but definitly fun in action.

And yes a good way to help a player who has suffered at the hands of another