Opinion Poll: What do you think about "Can upgrade units in allied City-State territory" bonus being in Imperialism?

[balparmak]

This is not a poll for a proposal I'm just wondering what people feel about this, hope it doesn't violate new forum rules.
Currently "Can upgrade units in allied City-State/Vassal territory" bonus is provided by Exploitation tree in Imperialism, which in theory should allow the player to conduct overseas invasions by using city-states on other continents as jumping points. Warmongering is not my preferred playstyle, but I don't remember really utilizing this policy when I go for domination anyway. It's very likely that overseas CS' are already being diplo-bombed by the AI, so if you don't get a sphere, a coup or a couple GDiplos, it is unlikely to have them as allies. It doesn't fit thematically with Exploitation either.

I think this would provide a lot more benefit to the diplomatic playstyle, therefore to Statecraft, where your allies can often get attacked by their neighbors. You can gift units, but it's less effective because a) AI will never utilize them as good as you do, b) It locks the units to that CS, where in practice you're more likely to alternate defending city-states. It may not be a common case, but it's very annoying to shuffle units back and forth when it happens.
Exploitation can instead have a bonus of "allied city-states gift twice as much strategic resources" or "get strategic resources with tributes", both are a lot more exploitative. I don't know what would be taken off of Statecraft though.

Moderator Action: No polls outside of the VP Congress. - Recursive

 

[looorg]

Is there a reason it can't be both, but obviously for different reasons. That said I don't really use it all that much but it does happen. There are times tho I wish I had the option, but then I'm usually not Imperialistic so I have to hoof it back to my own border or conquer a city and then move units in there to upgrade them. In that regard in wars it doesn't just really matter all that much since you can just "create" an upgradezone in that regard by conquest.

Nothing in my mind says you shouldn't or couldn't be able to have it in both trees if you like. In Imperialism you keep it as a form of extending your force and will on city-state subjects (allied, vassals etc) and by Statecraft you could have the same effect but by being allied and having "trade" or political relations with them.

That said I voted to Imperialism. Keep it the way things are unless there is a better option.

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

When I wanted to mod the base game, I imagined putting this exact effect inside Patronage. I also would tweak patronage to be partly about CS enhancements but in other ways about creating soft power, essentially themed to be what Imperialism became in VP. I wanted to move "Treasure Fleets" into there, for instance, if just in name and reconcepting the effect tied to it.
With VP's distinction between "The diplo route tree" and ... Imperialism, the effect to supply armies is a perfect flavor fit where it is. I only wish that the bonus could start to be enjoyed at the Medieval Era timing.

 

[Recursive]

Moderator Action: No polls outside of the VP Congress.