I read somewhere that Meier thought of Civ1 much bigger than it eventually was decided.
For many reasons, I would find rather ok to play Civ1 with a double size: double number of civilizations (something like 14) and double the size of map, both x and y axis (a 160x100 squares map).
This would allow an average double space for each player at the beginning of the game.
At present state, an average emperor game for a experienced player against CPUs see a contemporary age dominated by 1, 2 or - fewer times - 3 supersuperpowers which have already annihilated most opponents (and still with a pop size of about a few millions people each).
One of the goals of a new civ scale is to have at least 3 (but better 4, 5 or more), powers or superpowers (each with tens of millions of people) that balance world military and economics through wars and strategic alliances.
The known relationship between crowdness and technology level (which otherwise could generate a contemporary age in 1500AD) could be balanced by the strategical need to expand and continuous warfare in such a big and crowdy planet, but I would not think at this things like a problem.
The fact that we could grow a relatively average sized empire with maybe 30 cities and dozens of units of the same type could be a awful scenery for those like me who hate micromanagement. But you know, micromanagement is for when things go bad and you only own 10 or less cities. For your huge 50 cities empire you may afford the costs of not being "always there".
The main issue would ebe technical one: if one can hack civilization for having it working with such sizes, will be the AI still be ok for handling it, both in size and in new tactical complexity? I doubt of this, and it would result in a frustrating single player experience.
But even if the AI could handle the changing, it would not handle the new diplomatic strategic and geopolitical complexity - again, frustrating because I could not make the romans understand that to unite against the Aztecs is the only way for both of us to survive.
If we can play against friends, the main point would turn to be in having the maximum number of friends in the game, namingly more than 3: lucky if you can.
So, the most important part (geopolitical complexity) seems to be impossible to achieve.
But still we can imagine that from 2 of the most important sides of Civilization experience things cannot but become better and better. I'm referring to the exploration/empire growing size and to the military side.
In the explore/grow side the availability of great continents and a number of islands, oceans, inner or mediterraenean seas should give you a lot time for enjoying your big sized earth. Inner cities can grow with no fear till there are bombers out there, and you will concentrate entire armies near the borders. In the modern era you can still "discover" americas and still found there the most important part of your anglo-saxon civilization, after killing some indians, of course.
On the military side, only great news. Just speaking of the 20th century, you can imagine a "1st world war scenario" in which square by square you try to hold and conquer a minor neighbour's city. Or some years later a "Pacific war" scenario with massive naval/air battles including dozens of units, bloody ground battles for the possession of tiny islands and lot of strategy; or a Normandy invasion with long-thinked planning but enormous losses just to get to Berlin before the Russian.
This is the dream. The main question is: is it possible to achieve?
