Costs unbalanced?

[therother]

I'm biased toward expansive strategies, so I'll concede that my advice probably has less value for someone who takes a more patient approach to the game.

Which, as I'm the very model of such a player, is probably why we have such differing views on population expansion. For me, one of the things I aim for is having the most populated, richest, and advanced civilisation. I monitor the profit I make per turn, and try to maximise it with the settlements that I have. I then move on expanding slowly, methodically, where I'm allowed to by treaty, or where my strategic situation says would be best, using subterfuge if necessary it the settlement belongs to an ally or neutral. I never break an alliance, and only rarely declare war on a neutral, except at the Senate's direct behest.

I prefer to use diplomacy over brute force, spies and assassins over swords and cavalry. I enjoy the odd battle, to be sure, but it's the overall strategy that draws me to TW.