Pawel said:
2. Since it allows more cities, a reduction in food (as suggested by Wattigi) would reduce their size. Other ways to achieve the same goal would be to cause unhappiness or unhealthiness.
My suggestion about -1 food for cottages, hamlets, villages and towns was meant to force people to knock down those money making improvements because the city couldn't support them, not to restrict growth. When they are replaced with, say, a workshop, production increases at the expense of commerce.
State Property should be a large, production focused option, but it can be used as a large financial option. When everything in a large empire is converted to workshops, watermils and windmills, it will produce enough research to get by but it isn't abused. It researches slower but in a more realistic sense, it has less expenses, but it has less commerce/trade and also has less surplus. In the end it becomes a large production powerhouse with less income which is what I think it's meant to represent.
The problem I see with State Property, is that it allows you to build towns with state property that sends your income sky high, with very little resistance to it. If there was a penalty for building a commerce producing improvement (ie, town) then it would, I think, balance out.
Having said all this, the civic system is designed to allow people to come up with their own system of rule, like a benevolent dictator, or a nasty, oppressive democracy. We are all assuming that State Property = less income/trade. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe it just equals less maintanence first and foremost and increasing your hammer output as a close second.
Watiggi