After the Sumerian LT, let's talk a bit about Singapor.

First thing first, the LT:

Has it been tweaked already to remove the point I'll complain about? I don't see it written here. I'm talking about their inability to create a new city. It seems an harmless thing but it prevents player to build outposts anywhere on the map, turn them into cities and liberate them as city states... which happen to be part of the bonus given by the LT.
I'd suggest to change to make it so, that if the Singaporeans own more than one city at the end of the turn, any city that is not their capital becomes a city state.

Edit: Following @RedSirus judicious comment: 

If the Singaporeans create a new city, which is not merged during the turn, the city will automatically become a city state at the end of the turn.

This could be made by applying a special status on those cities.

As for other changes:

1. bump the reduction to -75% on Absorb City cost (as stated in my Sumerian tweak post, it is a loosing path, no need to make it tough)
2. negate totally the stability loss from attaching territories to the capital

And the second part of the culture I want to discuss, the EQ (haven't had the occasion to use the EU):

Here again, an information seems to be missing: it has to replace a FQ (and can be built multiple times too but that's not the part that I wish to complain bout). I don't think many players do build some and those who do probably have not enough of them built to enjoy the EQ. Once again, a big city with many FQ will lack the industry to build many districts.

Here are some suggestions:

1. Make it possible to build it on a MQ, a MQ or RQ too.
2. Make it possible to built it without a previous FQ, in an empty space.
3. Give a huge (90%?) discount for placing it on a FQ. There's no reason to get so little benefice for so much industry and time (If you go tall, blocking the production line for some turns is a bigger deal than with 10 cities!) The discount could be tied with the city cap, but needs to be big!

Edit: Finally, I'm back with some ideas arount the EU, even if I did not tested it (not sure many have).

What's so special about it?

1. It is a militia and they pop twice as much as normally.
2. They get a bonus +1 on strength compared to irregulars (and remain far from the 57 from the jungle brigada).

I like those bonuses, they seem pretty decent. I'd like to offer however a alternative, which would rely on the city cap and be as follow:

1. Make »Up in arms« not double the number of militia but increase it by an amont equivalent to difference between the city cap and actual number of city, if this number is positive. In practice, it could increase the number by 10 if I'm correct, even 12 with the Achaemenid Persians (but see below).
2. Lower their strength to 48 but increase it by an amont equivalent to difference between the city cap and actual number of city, if this number is positive. They could go up to 58, or even 60 with the Achaemenid Persians. It could seem pretty high but:
   1. To do so, you'll have to have only one city
   2. You'd have to get the event The Combine (which btw needs to get reworked)
   3. The probability that a player takes small council + Achaemenid to play a solo city in era VI is limited.
   4. A huge +3 comes from the Space orbital technology, which is not precisely the easiest to get.
   5. Those do come up during siege, no one's taking over the world with reservist. Even with arms deal (does it work for reservists?), if you pop some, you'd lose power the more cities you grab.
   6. A more average strength value will be anywhere between +3 and +6 (four technologies, the civic and/or event and then between one and 4 cities), for a 51 to 54 strength total.

The end.

Very good point, I forgot one could have more than one city when picking the Singaporeans, I'll edit my post and add something to limit it to new cities.
Thank you!

Edit: Added something about the EU too.

I'll bump up my thread with a simple suggestion as an alternative to deal with the »no new city« from the LT:

1. allow Singaporeans to create new cities.
   1. have them produce -75% FIMSI
   2. or alternatively, to keep the number of cities theme: have all city, with the exception of the capital, suffer a -10% to all FIMSI equivalent to the number of owned cities.

Those »solutions« have the benefit to not add further distinction between cities, past the already existing capital/non-capital status.

Edit: spelling