The new "dramatic age" mode has a huge potential. That's why I'd like to add some ideas and critics so that something can be done.
-The loyalty system and the chances to loose a city
City loss: At the moment I found it highly incoherent in some cases. For example, I'm in a game as India, in emperor difficulty, and I have a city with more than 10 citizens (recently 13), [5 spaces from my capital (13-15 citizens and a governor), 3 spaces from an other city with 9 citizens (and a governor), 6 and 7 spaces from free cities (6 and 4 citizens), in that city there is the governor's square and activity square, as well as Victor with Garrison Commander promotion... In golden areas I have more than 30 loyalty in that city but I constantly loose it in dark age. And not only I loose it but it is able to keep it's own loyalty, forcing me to fight it in order to get it back?!? (15 loyalty in the city when I get it back) How logical is that? Not to mention that I'm also loosing cities that are in a range of 6 spaces from the statue of liberty (Why is that possible????)
Loyalty pressure: So I found that in some cases, some cities that you loose really make no sense. But also, the pressure that free cities apply on each other is ridiculously high ?!? They apply the basic 20 loyalty that can vary, plus and extra constant 10 loyalty which is an equivalent to our governors (exept that governors only have +8), and a +1 bonus. It seems quite unbalanced and not that logical. Why would an anarchy, military centered, with no growth city, be more attractive than a regular civ one? (out of 12 civs on my emperor game, 3 collapsed because of free cities)
-Free cities military strength
So when a free city appears, the first thing it will do is generate the highest leveled units you have unlocked in your tech tree. And will keep up spamming them 'til the world ends.
Why not in the regular mode where you loose a city when you play too bold, or where you've really been bad... In dramatic ages mode you will loose plenty of cities just because some stupid AI decided to rush one branch of the tech tree and speed up the ages sequences (emperor's difficulty, atomic ages - turn 350/750). So unless you are playing full technology and military, you will most likely to fight way stronger units than what you already have. For example, I have to fight units in diffrent spots of your empire, that need oil to be built, but I haven't unlocked oil yet. Free city doesn't require the ressource to build it...
-To go further
So suppose that the previous issues where balanced, and you still come up with HUGE no-go areas that will most likely NOT absorb other civs with high level of happiness (because it's balanced and why would an entire city of happy citizen become a terrorist's lair?).
It'd be amazing if, after a while, that no-go area could structured itself and become a new civilisation? The new civ could start with a proportionate mix of the techs and civics of it's original civs with a little boost, and could be the closest availble civ not in game yet, of one of the original ones? For example, if Rome looses a bunch of cities, and those free cities manage to keep their own loyalty for a couple years (I don't know, something like 50 turns?), thoses cities could merge into a new empire like Byzantine (If Byzantine is not available it could be France, Germany, Spain, Greece, etc...). I personnaly love the idea of a new civ emmerging out of some free cities.
It would make the game more dynamic and keep away the possibility of having half of the map covered with barbarian-like empires, where nobody can enter, and that forces you to stop all international trade routes.
-AI
That's not really related to the new updates but I do wish AIs where a bit smater. I wish they wouldn't rush headlong one branch and accelerate the areas.
And it would also be great if, instead of having the same stupid AI with OP culture, science, production and starting number of settlers, the opponent could just be smarter, and adapt his game to you, the higher the difficulty is.
