[GS] Loyalty conquest.

[Tech Osen]

So I recently started a game to get a score victory for the HoF. Turned off the other victory conditions, huge continents and islands map on emperor. Random civ gave me France with Eleanor.
So I'm doing what she does best: peaceful conquest. Now I like the mechanic and setting it all up. Goes smoothly so far, one civ gone, one marginalized and another two all but.

But what I don't like is that everybody loves me for it. Three of those civs are allies and they keep renewing without issue while I take over their cities. It just feels stupid.
I feel it should cause the same amount of grievances as occupying a rival's city or something. Especially when you're actively working on boosting the pressure. Though that may cause unintended issues when the AI places cities at impossible spots. Not sure how to fix this but the current situation, especially with Eleanor, just feels of to me.

 

[Deadly Dog]

Maybe those allies want to join your civ, because its such an enlightened federation of mutual self-interest and balanced competition? They see speeding up the process via continued alliance as a good thing that doesn't require the dismantling of their own culture and identity?

I know, more a utopian novel than a historical replay. Just looking to help with the immersion factor....

 

[Atlas627]

I suppose they could just call loyalty pressure "border conflicts" for a diplomatic modifier. I know I wouldn't care if the total loyalty pressure didn't exceed my own loyalty per turn without easily-adjustable things (governors, policies, etc), but I could understand being peeved at an opponent who is gaining from your misery, despite how unintentional loyalty pressure can be.

And I totally agree that it is silly how much the AI likes you when you're destroying them peacefully. At least I can understand none of them being willing to stop you from winning the game, but with the loyalty flipping they're actually *losing* things so they really should be spurred to action...