[Vote] (1-12) Proposal: Add a new city fate when conquering a city state that is under a Sphere of Influence

[Recursive]

Voting Instructions
Players, please cast your votes in the poll above. Vote "Yea" if you'd be okay if this proposal was implemented. Vote "Nay" if you'd be okay if this proposal wasn't implemented. You can vote for both options.

All votes are public. If you wish, you can discuss your choice(s) in the thread below. You can change your vote as many times as you want until the poll closes.

VP Congress: Session 1, Proposal 12
Proposer: @akasha27
Sponsor(s): @Recursive
Previous Discussion Thread: https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...e-that-is-under-a-sphere-of-influence.679082/

Proposal Details
My suggestion is to add one more city fate option to a conquered city state that is under a Sphere of Influence:
- Remove/Liberate from Sphere of Influence

The city state wouldn't be neither annexed or puppeted, but the sphere of influence from the previous player would be removed.
This would give a chance to those civs with less influence on the Congress to counter balance some snowballing of the Congress Delegates.

Thoughts?

 

[Stalker0]

Needs Clarification: Is this a change to the liberate option, or is this an entirely new option? If its the latter, does the option ALSO liberate?

If it does liberate, should be noted that freedom's self-determination tenent should include it for bonuses.

 

[usadefcon1]

Needs Clarification: Is this a change to the liberate option, or is this an entirely new option? If its the latter, does the option ALSO liberate?

If it does liberate, should be noted that freedom's self-determination tenent should include it for bonuses.

This would apply to an independent city state that is under World Congress Sphere of Influence.

The current Liberate option applies to a conquered city state.

Not sure if the new option will be applied to Self Determination or not

 

[pineappledan]

I feel this conflicts with the other proposal to make Spheres of Influence harder to propose. I would rather implement the WC changes first, and then see where we stand.

Voting no for now, but as a deferral.

 

[Stalker0]

This would apply to an independent city state that is under World Congress Sphere of Influence.

The current Liberate option applies to a conquered city state.

Not sure if the new option will be applied to Self Determination or not

there is no such thing as an indepedent CS in that scenario. You only get the menu when you've conquered it. You can either annex, puppet, or liberate in the case of CS. So is this a 4th option, or an expansion of the liberation?

 

[usadefcon1]

there is no such thing as an indepedent CS in that scenario. You only get the menu when you've conquered it. You can either annex, puppet, or liberate in the case of CS. So is this a 4th option, or an expansion of the liberation?

If you conquer a CS with a black/color alternating border that is under a World Congress SOI, this would apply.

If you conquer a CS that someone else has already conquered then the old Liberate would apply.

 

[Stalker0]

If you conquer a CS with a black/color alternating border that is under a World Congress SOI, this would apply.

If you conquer a CS that someone else has already conquered then the old Liberate would apply.

So check me then:

1) A person gets a SOI on CS X.
2) CS X is conquered and kept (aka no SOI removal)
3) I now conquer CS X, there is no option for me to remove the SOI. If I liberate the CS, it will go right back to the sphere holder.

Is that right?

 

[usadefcon1]

So check me then:

1) A person gets a SOI on CS X.
2) CS X is conquered and kept (aka no SOI removal)
3) I now conquer CS X, there is no option for me to remove the SOI. If I liberate the CS, it will go right back to the sphere holder.

Is that right?

In my humble opinion, SOI should be removed at Step 2 of your scenario but I see what you're saying. There's some gray area there.

 

[Stalker0]

In my humble opinion, SOI should be removed at Step 2 of your scenario but I see what you're saying. There's some gray area there.

yes and that is a problem. I don't think this proposal can go through unless these areas are addressed, and that should trigger a revote.

 

[akasha27]

Hope this clarifies:

City fate options:
- Raze
- Annex
- Puppet
- Liberate (only possible if the CS belongs now to another player)
- [NEW] Remove SOI (only possbile if the CS is independent and has a SOI with someone else)

Scenario #1
1) CS X gets SOI by Player 1
2) Player 2 defeats CS X and chooses Puppet or Annex
3) SOI from Player 1 is removed, and Player 2 gets the city

Scenario #2
1) CS X gets SOI by Player 1
2) Player 2 defeats CS X and chooses "Remove SOI"
3) SOI from player 1 is removed, Player 2 does not get the city

"Remove SOI" could be called: "Establish new government"

 

[CppMaster]

Shouldn't Player 2 get SOI in the Scenario#2?

 

[akasha27]

I feel this conflicts with the other proposal to make Spheres of Influence harder to propose. I would rather implement the WC changes first, and then see where we stand.

I agree that the other proposal is much simpler to implement, and I am totally voting Yes for it, but I don't see how they conflict

 

[akasha27]

Shouldn't Player 2 get SOI in the Scenario#2?

Maybe, or maybe not.
@balparmak proposed this on the main discussion, which I personally find interesting:

"Agreed. I'd make the liberated CS have open doors enforced for 30 turns, and go further by making this available regardless if the CS sphered or not, so you can also remove allies without ending up with a undesired puppet. You'd still get warmonger and diplomatic penalties, but to a lesser extent. To make the CS more defensible, we can move the heal/upgrade in allied CS lands bonus from Imperialism to Statecraft."

 

[Stalker0]

Hope this clarifies:

City fate options:
- Raze
- Annex
- Puppet
- Liberate (only possible if the CS belongs now to another player)
- [NEW] Remove SOI (only possbile if the CS is independent and has a SOI with someone else)

Scenario #1
1) CS X gets SOI by Player 1
2) Player 2 defeats CS X and chooses Puppet or Annex
3) SOI from Player 1 is removed, and Player 2 gets the city

Scenario #2
1) CS X gets SOI by Player 1
2) Player 2 defeats CS X and chooses "Remove SOI"
3) SOI from player 1 is removed, Player 2 does not get the city

"Remove SOI" could be called: "Establish new government"

So in scenario 2, does the CS go free? Isn't that "liberation" with some extra benefits then?

It should be noted that in scenario 1, that removal of a SOI is new, and isn't really mentioned in the proposal. Aka its a stealth feature.

 

[akasha27]

So in scenario 2, does the CS go free?

Yes It would go free.

So in scenario 2, does the CS go free? Isn't that "liberation" with some extra benefits then?

You can put it that way, but "Liberate" at the moment only happens when the CS was previously captured

It should be noted that in scenario 1, that removal of a SOI is new, and isn't really mentioned in the proposal. Aka its a stealth feature.

Are you saying that liberating a CS at the moment does not automatically break the SOI? I wasn't aware of that.
If so, wouldn't it be a bug? What's the point to have an active SOI in congress for a City State that belongs to someone else now?

 

[usadefcon1]

What's the point to have an active SOI in congress for a City State that belongs to someone else now?

If you (or someone else) liberates the city it would go back to SOI status instead of just Allied.

 

[Recursive]

Needs Clarification: Is this a change to the liberate option, or is this an entirely new option? If its the latter, does the option ALSO liberate?

If it does liberate, should be noted that freedom's self-determination tenent should include it for bonuses.

Does not liberate in the traditional sense.

I feel this conflicts with the other proposal to make Spheres of Influence harder to propose. I would rather implement the WC changes first, and then see where we stand.

Voting no for now, but as a deferral.

Does not conflict, IMO. If you conquer a City-State, the Sphere of Influence is also negated.

 

[Recursive]

For further clarity, if a City-State dies, any Sphere of Influence involving them is removed.

Edit: There might be a bug preventing it from taking place unless a major civ dies, but the code shows it is clearly intended to be removed. If this bug exists, I will fix it.

 

[Slyceth]

I feel this conflicts with the other proposal to make Spheres of Influence harder to propose. I would rather implement the WC changes first, and then see where we stand.

Voting no for now, but as a deferral.

I disagree, I think it compliments it. That other proposal is about how you acquire city states as spheres of influence while this is how you get rid of spheres of influence outside of the world congress

You need to understand how painful it is when you don't want to own an extra city (city state cities can be absolutely awful) but you still want to stop them from spawning units and attacking you.

It seems pretty logical that when you defeat them, they surrender. It's just another way of conquering and granting vassalage, but to a city state.

 

[Stalker0]

So I think the original proposal needs to be updated with all we have talked about so far. The original text is woefully inadequate to the nuances of the proposal, and I would push for a revote.