Hopefully, the new mission based influence system will provide an alternative but I really think long-term benefits of city states should exist. If I've been allies with Geneva since the classical age and it's now Industrial, why should anyone be able to just come along and make the city state not care about me in the slightest? As i see them, City states are basically looking for a civ with whom they can offer resources and services in return from protection; essentially vassals. So why should a civ that's right next to me feel safer with a power on a different continent? Really confuses me...
Perhaps doing missions instead of bribes could add to a "trust" bar which would add an effect similar to Alexander's? Or aiding a city state in times of war could give a boost? This could be a pool of trust; if Alexander does two missions but I've done eight, I'll get a bigger degradation in influence decay from trust. Thoughts?
South Korea and Israel are examples of this happening in real life though.
Originally Posted by twersx
However South Korea and Israel aren't already next to a peaceful protector who is willing and looking forward to a peaceful coexistence. Israel has had tenuous relations with it's Islamic neighbors and South Korea is close to two communist nations that don't offer a feeling of safety.
Something should have to happen that threatens the city-state or drives an ideological wedge between a civ that was it's ally and neighbor for so long. Honestly, I think City-states, if at high enough levels of approval and bordering your empire should ask to join your empire. They'd be like puppets with less unhappiness and reward better diplomacy based on how they view the world.
I know Austria looks like it might be able to do this, but this would add a new layer of diplomacy.
However, the diplo victory would definitely need altering if this change were to go through
I think their allegiance should go to who ever has done the most for them whether it's quests or money. Alexander's UA doesn't degrade your relations, that's just the patronage tree at work, you can take patronage too. I do agree though that when wars start it would be nice if CSs you're friendly or better with would remain neutral instead of all your influence going out the window. At the very least your influence could degrade faster for going to war with one of their allies or something.
You people are not thinking in historical contexts. The flip-flopping now is a compromise between the way city-states actually worked and the way post-LoN diplomacy has changed the previous geopolitical status quo.
City-states are also entitled to their own interests. If someone else can provide more for them than you have recently, then why shouldn't they warm up to these new benefactors? Just imagine every CS being ruled by its own Mobutu, and you will get the idea.
Yeah that's kind of what I said but I don't like how a CS will go to war on a civ that has 120 influence just because another civ has 121 influence that's all. I'm not usually one to criticize lack of realism, its basically a suped up board game, but irl a country wouldn't turn hostile on one benefactor just because of another benefactor. They'd remain neutral and soak both sides for as much as possible. I think for a declaration of war your influence should be neutral or at the very least out of the ally range.
Originally Posted by Magic_Hotdog