I'll give another positive vote to loyalty. While it can be a pain at times, it actually makes you plan more. For example, in my current game (Kupe), I decided that I wanted to use my Toa to try to take out Lautaro. Well, it was much slower than I hoped, mostly because I was in a golden age, and he had a few campuses up so got to crossbows fairly early in the war. There was one city on the edge of his empire, but on the border with Hungary, that I took down first, but I knew that I couldn't hold it due to loyalty until I caught their next city. So I got it redlined, and just kept a couple units around it to siege it so it couldn't recover. So I moved my army towards their next city, and got enough attacks to dump its walls, but he came back strong with swords and crossbows, and I was losing a lot of units. Now, the council resolution to make cheaper units was in play, so my main couple cities were pumping out Toa every 3 turns, but they were killing my units just about as fast. At one point, I ended up taking the city I was sieging, and was hoping that with a governor it wouldn't flip. But I was losing the race, and eventually it got down to 1 turn left. At that point, I wasn't going to be able to take their next city, so I ended up giving the city back to them in peace, retreated my units, regrouped, and decided to take out Hungary instead. So yes, because of loyalty, it definitely stung in my battle. But to me, it worked exactly right. There was a ton of pressure, that I couldn't simply walk in and snipe a city without really fighting to keep it. I purposely sieged the city and delayed capturing it in hopes that I could actually take a couple cities at the same time and have a better chance of holding both. It added another strategic challenge, and because of that and the world congress, I actually couldn't keep up my war and had to pivot.