Elda King
Prince
They can't be matched by one single civ, but will they face one single enemy? Won't their power unite their enemies in alliances against them? And they'll have less growth (less health and happiness, for example), slowing their development, and smaller culture means smaller borders (and probably more chances of cities rioting and joining enemies, as the slaves aren't allways disposed to serve forever). They can't simply destroy the ring to win, nor send Ëarendil ask pardon and help from the Valar. Isn't this hard enought to make the game balanced?As for having the Shadow being "invincible" at war, is that entirely wise? I'm wondering how that is intended to be gone about. For if other nations have wonders and wealth, while that is fine, if the Shadow are better at war then it is irrelevant. Unless the wonders are supposed to improve cities' defensive capabilities (of which there would likely be one), then it seems the Shadow would always win.
And tell me, what political importance the shire had? Great commercial partner, fought great war, had great cultural influence, discovered many new things aside from the pipeweed, had a huge land? We already have 18 civs, there's no need of putting every faction in the world as a civ. Have you ever considered how hard it would be to make hobbit units for every era, and creating a entire new cultural group (with different techs and everything) for them? It's like putting Trinidad and Tobago on civ, it would be much harder than worthy, there are other priorities (without intention of offending any people from Trinidad and Tobago, it's just an example, and I don't mean by it that the country is worse than others - it just isn't a imperialistic power or huge country).