Ooooh! good idea!

sorry not much to add, but it would be nice for both factions to have similar tech trees/options that play out very differently.

plus wouldnt it be sweet to take over your puny neighbors just by parking an army on their boarder, and demanding surrender or death! mabey there could be a propaganda agent that could spread rumors of your greatness to other kingdoms/empires. so when you decide that its time for them to "join" your great and powerful nation, their leaders will have to deal with a restless population should they refuse.

the possibilities are delightfully wicked!!!

I'd like you to consider historically who has conquered "by culture" and examine how that happened. A very recent example would be how China has controlled Tibet and Taiwan by simply stating over and over that they own them. Please also examine situations in which Rome gradually assumed control of the nearby countryside: not the land they gained because they invaded or because they signed a deal, but the land they gained simply because they were there, had a powerful culture that drew people in, and dominated the region.

Their mapmakers could draw a map, include territories not technically theirs, and eventually people would recognize they just "owned it."

Then imagine France drawing a portion of Spain in its borders and imagine the response: laughing stock.

I don't really want to argue about whether this should be "religion based," or not with you. I just wanted to share with you some historical insight. It would seem to me that it is not the nations of liberty that Dominate others through culture, but rather the Strong and Mighty.

Yea, the aggressor would have to start out with a sizable army near your borders (as in occupying a city that is near your borders) before the AI would want to start bullying around a player. Similarly, when a player bullies the AI, the AI would look at potential allies (diplomatic situation) as well as its own overall military power vs their perception of your military power.

This second event could be aided by bringing a sizable force within an area you KNOW is within their LOS

Additionally, NSNs (Non-Sovereign Nations) could be impressed (might culture) or diplomatically made to be your vassal. This would give you less control than outright capturing the city, however you would have approx 90% diplomatic influence over the nation as long as it remains your vassal, and this would remain the case until the Vassal's mortal leader dies and is replaced with a less-than-loyal heir.

Now, if the mortal leader's heir is not entangled by foreign politics, it will remain your vassal. If their heir is directly part of your family line, you gain the city. If the heir is entangled with another player, the city becomes vassal of the other player. If the heir is directly part of another player's family line, then the city joins the other player. If the heir is rebellious or in other ways disloyal then the Vassalage will rebel and become an independent city. Any armies/soldiers contructed by the Vassal city are controlled by the politics of the Vassal Nation. I have been talking as if Vassals are only one city, but really its a 3rd party nation controlled by a Champion. It could have multiple cities.

A city will never simply "break away" from a nation (unless "culturally impressed"). I suppose there could be certain events where a city stages a rebellion, however for the most part your cities are your cities. Vassals can switch allegiances, and have the potential to be consumed by Sovereign controlled Nations, however Sovereign Nations can not vassalize each other.

However, if a Sovereign dies the cities don't simply disappear. The cities become independents, ready to be either conquered or vassalized. Also, if two nations are very closely connected with family ties ... if one Sovereign dies the other Sovereign will likely get most or all of his cities.

lol not trying to argue for a religious faction either, though being aetheist to agnostic depending on the day of the week I couldn't help poking a little fun at the established religons that seem to cause so much trouble world wide.

But more on point to politely disagree on the Tibet/Tiawan issue. I still beleive that the underlying ability there was the projection of military force, even if unstated. Now I won't pretend to be even remotely knowledgable on the exact details of the situation but lets look at it this way.

Assuming Tibet/Tiawan decided we aren't playing ball, what are they going to do against China. They are neighbors and while they may have allies. Is it reasonable to expect either Europe, the United States or Russia to get in a full blown pissing contest with China over either of these two countries if the possibility is the outcome would require a martial settling of the disagreement. So through an understated application of might and proximity they helped acquire these lands. If China didn't have the military might it did then it's redrawing of the map and subtle claiming of the countries never would have suceeded.

When I think Cultural Assimilation I think more of what is going on in Iran. Not what we are doing, but the widening divide between Social Order Fundamentalist and Personal Freedom Individulist. Obviously Iran will never become the 52 State but culturally we are considered invaders by the fundamentalist by showing them a different lifestyle that flys in the face of their religon and tradition and comes off as more appealing to the young upcoming generations.

I don't really know enough about how Elemental will handle culture, if at all!

If they do a civilization approach where you have these expanding, conflicting borders, then I think it would be neat to have the Empire's culture borders projected from where their main legions are, and by "great leaders" being stationed in cities. Rather than trying to fiddle around with little "envoys" their culture pushers are big troops and powerful warriors. Their borders might start overlap the surrounding countryside, pushing back other influences and annexing resources. "Our empire has rightfully reclaimed the territory belonging to it: now the scenic view of nearby Osseldale belongs to us again."

Neutrals would capitulate to deals, and find their territories sharply constrained when legions were deployed to the vicinity of the war, and portions of the populace would become frightened and flee to safer lands, crippling the nearby city in population growth and prestige. A final push could be to "colonize" the city: sending wave after wave of "settlers" to inhabit the enemy city, eventually displacing the local population to a point where the city will start diverting resources to your empire, possibly flipping to your control.

A skillful or canny Empire player might demand the daughters of other Soveriegns to marry their sons in exchange for easing the pressure back and pulling the legions off the borders, but that would only be for a time. Soon the pressure would be back, and the Empire would have the allegiance of the offspring stationed in that city.

By contrast a Kingdom civilization wouldn't annex the lands of its neighbors. (unless it wanted to). They'd be able to use envoys and diplomats to work out peaceful treaties to allow equitable access to each other's lands, sharing resources and allowing others to use resources in their borders they weren't using. They'd ingratiate themselves to the local leaders, sign treaties that ensure the local kingdom will come to their aid in times of war, marry into the families, and become so beloved by the ally that they can't help but to join your great kingdom as a province.

Depends on how you look at it John. First look at the ultimate goal and the way it is acheived.

What is the Goal.   To take a city without actually having to conquer it.

What are the Ways. 

Cultural: Use of social pressure, changing the social landscape to where they want what you have in the way of lifestyle and goodies. This seems to be the model of most games that have a cultural domination in games goes. This unfortunately would include religious though I am very much against refering to religon as Culture. Personal bias.

But to increase the number of options we could add

Projection of Power: Use of military to install fear of a destructive subjegation which causes capitulization without bloodshed

Economic: To me this would be in essence buy them out or control all the natural resources they need so that in essence you own them.  Think back to the time when everyone was worried that Japanese companies were buying up all of America.

Political: To Change their leadership to bring it more into line of holding the same veiws as yours. This would strike me as working best in a fuedal setting where you could subvert a baron or duke and acquire his lands through transference of fealty. But it conveys the idea.

So if the fear would be the empire only having acsess to a single way and the kingdom having acsess to multiple that is an easy fix of removing the kingdoms ability to project military power.

While the empire could easily use the Last 3 as a way of assimilation. Unless it was Religous Fervor I just couldn't see a group where the weak are downtrodden with no hope of advancemnt being able to manage a cultural victory.

Then I guess we should probably speak about this to Frogboy before to long then.