First up, I would like a say a HUGE
HI THERE to our new Civfanatic-and 'insider'

-Shivam.
Second, as we now know (and unless its been changed) cities no longer 'Flip', they just become harder and more expensive to manage if faced with a nation with overwhelming culture. We also know that culture is now an important part in defending cities from attack. So, the use of Great Artists does not really seem to be more about making your own cities harder to capture or using them to boost the culture in a newly captured city-thus making it easier to hold. To be fair, though, I truly don't see this being overly exploited, given the fact that-though easier to get-Great People will almost certainly be still rare (and, if I remember, require a city to be specialised in 'arts and entertainment').
I also have to say that I
Love the way that they have now implemented 'Corruption'-City maintainance retains the overall idea of corruption-as a realistic concept-whilst not making it such that outlying cities are utterly useless. Also, though I was almost certainly not the cause, I advocated many months ago that having cities cost money (quite aside from the cost of improvements) would be a more effective means of reducing the 'Bigger=Better' phenomenon!!! Seems that we were on the same page on this one

! I am curious about a couple of things though (and perhaps you could come to the rescue here, Shivam) does Health and/or Distance from Capital play a role in city maintainance? and do individual City Improvements still have a maintainance cost?
Oh and, lastly, given the role of religion in Diplomacy, and in making a city harder to hold on to (or easier to get-depending on which side of it you are) I think it is very unfair to say that religion is a totally useless concept. Of course, I would be happier if Religions could break out of their Generic Beginnings and be happier if missionaries were done in a more abstract fashion. Overall, though, this is looking fantastic. Thanks again for the info Shivam

!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.