Suggestion: Citadel on allied City-States territory

[Delvemor]

Once in a while a City-State territory will include the perfect location for a canal. Or maybe you need to actively defend that City-State with your own units against an AI trying to capture it.

I don't know if it's possible code-wise or if people would want that, but being able to plant a citadel on an allied City-State territory would be nice in these situations.

What are your thoughts on that?

Edit: The citadel wouldn't steal land, only act as a citadel for canal and defense purposes. You would need to be allied with the CS in order to do that, but anyone else being allied with the CS in the future would benefit from the canal or the defense bonus too.

 

[AndreyK]

Whose land then it's going to be? If another civ going to gain an alliance with CS?

 

[InkAxis]

Whose land then it's going to be? If another civ going to gain an alliance with CS?

The CS's land.

The harder part is, who gets the Diplo penalty, but I would say the major civ that planted the citadel.

 

[Delvemor]

Whose land then it's going to be? If another civ going to gain an alliance with CS?

The CS's land.

The harder part is, who gets the Diplo penalty, but I would say the major civ that planted the citadel.

I edited my original post for more clarity. Stealing land should be done only from your own land as always. Thus no diplomatic penalty would be needed.

 

[Stalker0]

Maybe an embassy could act like a canal

 

[ridjack]

remove the citadel to replace it with a relevant improvement, such as a mine for a luxury.

Citadels give the resource anyway.

Maybe an embassy could act like a canal

Problem with this is if the relevant spot has any kind of resource on it, you can't plant an embassy there.

 

[InkAxis]

I actually don't think it's a bad idea to have it steal land.

For example you can steal resources from far away civs, but it's risky because you can lose the alliance.
It adds another factor to CS diplomacy, that is pretty realistic, if you think about major powers supporting their puppets/allies for their gain.

 

[Delvemor]

I actually don't think it's a bad idea to have it steal land.

For example you can steal resources from far away civs, but it's risky because you can lose the alliance.
It adds another factor to CS diplomacy, that is pretty realistic, if you think about major powers supporting their puppets/allies for their gain.

I would not be opposed to have it steal land, but it's beyond the scope of what I had in mind. I just want an option of having a canal or a nice strategic citadel in the territory of an endangered allied CS. I don't want to simply capture the CS, I prefer to keep the alliance. I want to be the major power supporting my puppets for strategic purposes.

 

[KlHannibal2]

City states sometimes build forts that create a canal. Maybe you could pay them gold to habe them build a fort on a specific tile you click on? Like you can pay gold to improve a resource. That would not exclude the original idea with the citadel.

 

[Thibix Magnus]

I really support that, many times I wished it was possible. Same as paying for a fort anywhere, or just be able to build forts in an allied CS. Additionally, I wouldn't mind that expending the great general provides influence with the CS. And indeed I don't mind land grabbing either, typically to ensure your navy can pass through a straight and isn't blocked by another civ who owns the water tiles and refuses open borders. With the diplo penalty applied to the owner of the great general.