Do you think this expansion will be ''the ultimate Civ5'' (like Civ4's BTS)?

[KokeenoPokameso]

I don't think either an expansion will ever make V as good as IV. The problem is that every single core design choice on V, expect 1UP, is inferior to its counterpart on IV. For example, global happiness is vastly inferior mechanism compared to IVs city and civic maintenance, but as it's a core mechanism, it won't be removed. An expansion may still make V better than it's now though.

This is the point I was trying to make. though apparently not very well.

 

[Pitboss]

I don't think there will ever be vassal states on CIV5. The concept is too close to puppet states and would cause confusion. The words "vassal state" and "puppet state" have the same meaning basically.

True.

While they do, I would make the suggestion that the puppet cities reflect more closely autonomous cities within an Empire. Such cities have existed throughout history, but are learned most commonly with the Holy Roman Empire (however, Tyre was such an example in the Assyrian Empire, for example).

However, you are right. From a name perspective, it might be too difficult to draw the distinction. However, I have a modest suggestion in the subforum that uses City-States to reflect vassals. It is essentially a puppet leader, however, so perhaps I'm blending them together too much as well.

True too.

Perhaps by allowing the player to add conquered cities to a "puppet empire"?
That would only make sense if such an empire would act like a "vassal empire", a "buffer state" or something similar.
But that could just as well be realized through your colony idea.