[GS] I hate loyalty more than any other mechanic.

[Henri Christophe]

I also hate this loyality mechanic, I need to leave an entire army to guard each city conquer because every each 3-4 turns they become a free city.
And I don't know how to gain more loyality, just put a governador who just give 8 loyality

 

[Linklite]

Put a governor in and station in the city. Use the policy cards that give you additional loyalty for governors and garrisoned troops. That should hold the city long enough for you to conquer two nearby cities. Once that is done, they should anchor each other.

 

[Vargas1]

Here's one of those seven seas map scripts with all that land to offer. Three different civ's on the doorstep with capitals, two with capitals ten tiles away. No ten-city empire happening here with breezy lack of contention. All too typical.
View attachment 626141

It looks like the issue is you're not settling early enough. The turn you're on is cut off, but you have a 6-person capital, only one settler out, and you're building a trader. Even still, I count at least 7-8 spots you could place cities, all either on the coast or on fresh water (and could probably squeeze another few in if you settled off water). And that's only in your core starting location, not even looking at the peninsula across the water or anywhere else on the map.

 

[kaspergm]

I agree on the Point that Loyalty as a Concept is a really good mechanic, and it worked pretty well so far in the Game, from the gameplay perspective so to say. (...) But even then, I yet don't know whether I like it or not, bc I have 2 big Issues with it, that sometimes totally ruin my games:

1) Immersion: (...)

2) Colonialism: with Loyalty, Colonies are very, very hard to settle and keep. The mechanic doesn't allow for that, bc when you settle a City too far from your other Cities but near other Player's Cities, you practically gifting a City to them, for free. And the only ways to settle Colonies are to either settle as many as possible and close to each other as quick as possible before any city flips, or settle somewhere where there is no foreign City (the AI will follow you everywhere, so, forget about that - tho, most of those places aren't profitable in the first place). That's totally unnecessary if you ask me. I mean, sure, it's a challenge, and would have been as good as the challenge you get from conquest with loyalty in play if there was some feature that would help with that, like spending a Governor Title to make a City Immune to Identity Pressure for X amount of turns or something, but the way how loyalty is implemented doesn't allow for Colonialism, in fact, it punishes it, and there is no fun in that. It's clear that Loyalty isn't designed with Colonialism under consideration, and that certainly comes at the price of a Gameplay approach/style that is part of not just History that players love to roleplay, but also Civilization and the 4X Gameplay in general.

I agree fully wrt. Colonialism, that's definitely one of the weakest points with how loyalty is implemented. Part of it probably also stems from the fact that cities start with 1 population even in the later stages of the game - if they adopted the Humankind idea of making later "colonialist" units that makes cities with more population as well as some basic infrastructure, that would come a long way to help this problem. And then again, if you are able to support your cities with amenities, they just should be much less prone to rebel from you, particularly if settled next to a culturally and/or technologically less advanced civ.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Put a governor in and station in the city. Use the policy cards that give you additional loyalty for governors and garrisoned troops. That should hold the city long enough for you to conquer two nearby cities. Once that is done, they should anchor each other.

I don't have man power to conquer other cities, I'm in the middle of a dark age, a lost a city to barbarians and I'm being attacked by a militar superior force and my small army is around a Spanish city who lost loyality to Spain and I aproveted to take control the rebel city, but just stay with me 3-4 turns.
The card bonus is too small +2, I need to do something around 20 influence in this city.

 

[steveg700]

It looks like the issue is you're not settling early enough. The turn you're on is cut off, but you have a 6-person capital, only one settler out, and you're building a trader. Even still, I count at least 7-8 spots you could place cities, all either on the coast or on fresh water (and could probably squeeze another few in if you settled off water). And that's only in your core starting location, not even looking at the peninsula across the water or anywhere else on the map.

Well, spoiler there is the other side of that sea is also congested with knife-sharpening civ's. The contention was that there's plenty of space between civ's for an empire. I cropped the data off to contain the perfectly natural tendency to stray off-topic to opinions regarding what should be happening in a procedural fashion (e.g. how many settlers before X date). FWIW, what can't be appreciated here in regards to maintaining timetables is that some effort went into dealing with aggressors, barb and Aztec. IIRC there's still an eagle warrior or two coming to party from down below.

Now, seeing seven or eight practical city sites there, that's something I was wondering if I'd hear said. I don't know what the expectation might be to get to all of that before either A) the AI settles the same spots first or B) the AI DOW's as all those hammers go into settling. The end result sounds like cities crammed into a clown car, which might be fine if the main goal is to get one science district per city. Something like that? I can appreciate that exercise in efficiency, however to me that kind of congestion does not excite my inner emperor.

 

[Patine]

I liked the way superior culture in early civ games would end up with you “stealing” hexes from uncouth neighbours.

Out of curiosity, where do you consider, "early," in the series when you say this (a term usually reserved for around the beginning). Civ1 and Civ2 have absolutely no cultural hegemonic mechanics.

I wonder if loyalty should be effected by certain civics, governments, and/or policies

Like developing the concept of Nationalism, it makes your cities very resistant to being flipped and difficult for an invader to hold, but it also makes it tough for you to hold on to cities you capture

It seems odd, indeed, that this is not the case.

 

[Leyrann]

Oh, I don't want or need your examples. I play the game and am speaking from experience and that incorporates all the different map types--seven seas, continents, whatever. Not sure how one can one think their examples can somehow tramp another's experience.

That is exactly how I'm feeling. And contrary to you, I took my last seven games, no bias, and showed that every single one of them backed up my experience and was completely different from yours.

Having sixteen tiles of space between capitals is not the norm in Ci VI.

As I showed through a random sample of games, yes, 12-16 tiles is normal.

"Trust me dude" is not a source.

Here's one of those seven seas map scripts with all that land to offer. Three different civ's on the doorstep with capitals, two with capitals ten tiles away. No ten-city empire happening here with breezy lack of contention. All too typical.

I don't know how you managed that, but that's not a normal Seven Seas game. You are playing on a map size that has more civs on it than the default for that size. 100% certain. I put 16 civs (rather than 12) on a pangea huge map (less land area than Seven Seas!) for the game that I mentioned as having abandoned for being too crowded, and I had more room than that.

I won't screenshot my current game because it's a ridiculous outlier with 25 tiles distance to the nearest AI, but here's the game I was playing before that, Highlands map type, 8 civs on a standard map.

You can barely see the Netherlands to the south-west and Brazil to the south-east. West of my empire is still room for potentially as many as seven more cities; as you can see I'm building Settlers right now.

In fact, have a second screenshot. At the top you can see the southern part of my empire (bottom of the first screenshot), and you can just barely see the capitals of those two civs.

THIS is a regular distance on a map with mostly land.

EDIT: I decided to check out the abandoned game I mentioned, I have room for at least`10 cities. The one caveat is that I'm now not sure whether it was in fact pangea, it might've been seven seas or lakes. Either way, I have no freaking clue how you get your map this crowded, but it can't be normal settings.

I don't have man power to conquer other cities, I'm in the middle of a dark age, a lost a city to barbarians and I'm being attacked by a militar superior force and my small army is around a Spanish city who lost loyality to Spain and I aproveted to take control the rebel city, but just stay with me 3-4 turns.
The card bonus is too small +2, I need to do something around 20 influence in this city.

In that situation, you absolutely shouldn't be fighting an offensive war. You should be consolidating, taking care of threats and waiting out the dark age. Once you got a golden age and your borders are secure, it's time to attack.

 

[Linklite]

I don't have man power to conquer other cities, I'm in the middle of a dark age, a lost a city to barbarians and I'm being attacked by a militar superior force and my small army is around a Spanish city who lost loyality to Spain and I aproveted to take control the rebel city, but just stay with me 3-4 turns.
The card bonus is too small +2, I need to do something around 20 influence in this city.

Your problem then is that you're trying to be on the offensive when really you ought to be on the defensive. You won't be able to hold every city in every situation. Your core empire should be fairly dense so that your cities reinforce each other with loyalty if you incur a Dark Age. During Dark Ages you should be focusing on defence, getting era points, and generally turtling your way through. When you get to a Normal, Golden or Heroic Age, then you can start thinking about taking over new cities in the manner I described. The point of Dark Ages is to prevent that kind of expansion.

 

[steveg700]

You are playing on a map size that has more civs on it than the default for that size. 100% certain.

Then I am afraid you're 100% wrong. As I already said, I play with two fewer civ's than max map size defaults. However, if you're casting aspersions when see evidence that doesn't fit a narrative, then that's liberating for me.

In that situation, you absolutely shouldn't be fighting an offensive war. You should be consolidating, taking care of threats and waiting out the dark age. Once you got a golden age and your borders are secure, it's time to attack.

There's a fair chance the post you're replying to is kidding around. I mean, if a player has all those problems, he doesn't need to be off invading cities.

 

[Leyrann]

Then I am afraid you're 100% wrong. As I already said, I play with two fewer civ's than max map size defaults. However, if you're casting aspersions when see evidence that doesn't fit a narrative, then that's liberating for me.

It's funny how you're saying I'm refuting evidence, when you are ignoring my seven games of evidence and using your one game of evidence as proof. I've given seven times the evidence you gave.

I also like how you completely ignored my screenshots, me pointing out that "trust me dude" is not a source, or indeed the entire list of games I gave as evidence. Meanwhile I've responded to every single thing you said and refuted it accordingly.

All in all, you're being rather hypocritical.

But you know what, why not upload the save game from the screenshot you gave? I'd love to take a look myself.

 

[Buktu]

I don't have man power to conquer other cities

If you dont have the manpower for an offensive war its another reason just to defend. An offensive war needs to be prepared well to be successful try to prebuild earlier units and save up for their upgrades. Ofc make sure to use the cards to make this even more efficient. Get a great general, support units and so on as well.
And, as others have mentioned, don't attack in a dark age unless you are so far ahead that you can take one city per turn at least.

 

[steveg700]

If you dont have the manpower for an offensive war its another reason just to defend. An offensive war needs to be prepared well to be successful try to prebuild earlier units and save up for their upgrades. Ofc make sure to use the cards to make this even more efficient. Get a great general, support units and so on as well.
And, as others have mentioned, don't attack in a dark age unless you are so far ahead that you can take one city per turn at least.

Again, I'm not so certain that post was intended seriously. Lays it on a bit thick.

At any rate, on a broader tangent it's worthwhile for players to comprehend that the era score implicitly rewards work on the "exploit" part of 4X moreso than "exterminate". Steering a civ into war can limit its era-scoring opportunities. Internal improvements provide the lion's share. Thematically, that's rather apropos and mitigates a common complaint that 4X games are boring non-games whenever the player isn't at war.

And this also ties into comments that loyalty should be influenced by generating culture, I think they may be sorta missing the point: it already is, Via golden ages. Theater districts generate three different types of GP's. World wonders generate big era drops. One archaeologist is good for 3 era score. I think players are well-covered in that area.

 

[Leyrann]

At any rate, on a broader tangent it's worthwhile for players to comprehend that the era score implicitly rewards work on the "exploit" part of 4X moreso than "exterminate". Steering a civ into war can limit its era-scoring opportunities. Internal improvements provide the lion's share. Thematically, that's rather apropos and mitigates a common complaint that 4X games are boring non-games whenever the player isn't at war.

Note that there are a few exceptions. Exterminating a civ is worth 5 era score, taking away suzerain status when armies are levied is worth 2 era score (also when not at war), levying a city state army close to someone you're at war with is worth 2 era score, and the big one... converting a city that belongs to someone you're at war with is 3 era score, and with some effort you can do this for most or even all cities!

There are also a few repeatable era score generators for fighting, such as killing a unit with at least 2 more levels of promotion or killing a larger unit (corps or army) than your own, both of which are worth 1 era score I believe, but the AI doesn't usually have a lot of units that qualify for that.

 

[steveg700]

Note that there are a few exceptions. Exterminating a civ is worth 5 era score, taking away suzerain status when armies are levied is worth 2 era score (also when not at war), levying a city state army close to someone you're at war with is worth 2 era score, and the big one... converting a city that belongs to someone you're at war with is 3 era score, and with some effort you can do this for most or even all cities!

There are also a few repeatable era score generators for fighting, such as killing a unit with at least 2 more levels of promotion or killing a larger unit (corps or army) than your own, both of which are worth 1 era score I believe, but the AI doesn't usually have a lot of units that qualify for that.

Yes, throw in the "To Arms" dedication and there are some good trophies for that notion of fighting wars in a "glorious" way, against a challenging opposition. Less so for predatory blitzes. I compliment this design.

Safe to say there's plenty of threads that go over the era score awarded for levying as being repeatable and feeling like something of a "gold-for-golden-age" exploit. So, still a pity it was never addressed in a patch.

 

[AntSou]

I find loyalty to be mostly invisible. It's kind of curious to see how people's experiences differ.

@steveg700 Do you always settle with that much space between cities? Loyalty pressure (and your ability to sustain pressure) will suffer from that.

 

[steveg700]

I find loyalty to be mostly invisible. It's kind of curious to see how people's experiences differ.

@steveg700 Do you always settle with that much space between cities? Loyalty pressure (and your ability to sustain pressure) will suffer from that.

It's a choice based on what's choicest. Amenities, fresh water, centricity for IZ's & GP's, popping erka/insp boosts....Oh, and the desire to beat the AI there. Loyalty is a problem indeed. Allowing the forward settles is the general alternative. Coast offers low prod, so settlers come off the line slowly. Can't hope to beat the AI except with woods to chop (rainforests are a poor stand-in). Hard choices. Granted, I know some see it simply as "screw all that, offload that science district...and the next one...and the next one...". :

I think the city label is covering the reason for moving there. Horses, maybe iron. Been a while.

 

[CoconutTank]

There are also a few repeatable era score generators for fighting, such as killing a unit with at least 2 more levels of promotion or killing a larger unit (corps or army) than your own, both of which are worth 1 era score I believe, but the AI doesn't usually have a lot of units that qualify for that.

I just want to add, air units are always single formation units, and given how powerful air units are individually, they can still mop "higher formation" units with ease. I really like taking advantage of that particular historic moment for getting me across the finish line

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

Anyone have any success stories with Bread and Circuses?

Without Loyalty civ 6 single player would be too easy so i'm glad it's there. I just wish it were a more interesting mechanic.

 

[Linklite]

Anyone have any success stories with Bread and Circuses?

in terms of taking over other civ's cities? Sure. I just absorbed the entirety of Brazil using that project. Around ten cities added to my empire. They were in a dark age and I was golden, I ran a project and their city loyalty collapsed. I then had another point of attack, so two more cities fell, and so forth.

Defensively? Nah, but I don't build cities that need them. In cities.that I take, the AI rarely builds ECs or WPs, and by the time they're built, the loyalty issue is resolved...one way or another.