In typing up a response to the OOC thread, I made a few suggestions that I'd like to put here so that they may earn their own discussion.

1. Substantially reduce stats across cities.

It's been suggested before, I'm just putting it here because it makes the other suggestions a bit more palatable. Weakening stats the farther you get from your home city means that cities become their own independent ecosystems instead of being controlled remotely. There is no reason for a player's hegemony over their own city to extend across the country. And the existing regime structure would benefit from the same protection.

2. Do not allow more than two crews of any kind in a single district.

There are currently 26 crews with over 300 empty spots available. If this rule were enforced, only five crews would have to move and there's six empty districts. If the stat reduction across cities were implemented, players might be less wary to leave home because it'll be less likely for them to be removed by their origin city later. And in an independent city, they'd be operating under their own strength instead of the power that put them there.

3. Substantially increase stats in home cities.

Players in their home cities benefit from a powerful boost against outsiders. War becomes more dangerous but also more strategic as location plays a much larger role in how it's waged. Proing would be something defenders would no longer need against foreign enemies, meaning the dangers of the 1% would be incurred exclusively by foreign attackers, if they choose not to create an HQ of their own.

Instead of pushing for changes that make it easier for the regime to die, maybe we need some regimes that make it easier for everyone to live. More independence. And then let the players do with it what they want.

The point of this is, in short is if you want to control every city, you have to put your guns in every city.

I like this idea a lot actually. You'd see a lot more battles within cities and a lot less of "NY wipes out PH" or whatever. A lot more communication and cooperation would need to occur WITHIN cities or even between local where the drop in stats would be the least (for example, CH/DT). It's a rather drastic change to the game but I think drastic times sometimes call for drastic changes. 

I would happily see this introduced, coupled with degeneration over time. This would likely result in a "family" controlling Detroit, for example, rather than an individual.  

While its immediate effects may appear unfair to the top, I don't believe this would disproportionately affect any one player or group of players at the top. I think the only persons who would end up worse-off after this change would be individuals who are operating on a foundation of foreign influence. And while that definitely has a historical place in the Mafia, I don't know that it validates an argument that greatly reducing or eliminating that influence would be unfair.

If "boxing in" any leader with their own people is an act of unfairness, then I think we've gotten to the point where such a change might be quite visibly positive for the game.