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

[Leyrann]

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.

I don't know if I agree that it's an issue. Unless you're at war with someone in the right position, levying a city-state is worth only one era score, and while I do indeed use it to secure golden ages on occasion (mostly as backup, as I tend to calculate at least 10-15 turns in advance whether I'll make the threshold if I'm not sure), I'd say that non-repeatable era score is much more important. Finishing religion beliefs, buying Great People for a lot of gold or faith, rushing (very occasionally even chopping) a district that I'd otherwise build later, buying a boat, upgrading or buying a unit that requires a resource, etc. There are a ton of era score sources that you can take when you need it without overly affecting your game otherwise.

I'd say that at least 80% of my non-ancient eras, and probably more than 90%, are dark or golden ages, I manage to avoid a normal age in virtually every situation, which shows I can almost always score anywhere in a range of 12+ era score depending on whether or not I go for era score (or even actively avoid it, if I think I can't make a golden age).

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

I have to admit that in my almost 900 hours of Civilization VI, I have never seriously used aircraft. There have been games where I got aircraft, mind, but never any where the AI was still an actual threat by that point in the game - in terms of war at least.

 

[CoconutTank]

Aye, I just like using air units (though I still wish there'd be hover units in mainline civ games again), so I tend to field air units whenever I can. The good news is that the AI actually makes use of air fighters now; in some of my recent games, the AI will actively intercept and air strike with them

 

[rgp151]

The loyalty mechanic is a big problem on non-Pangea type maps, which are what I prefer. Since domination is so simple on Pangea type maps, I always play continents, but loyalty make this a major challenge, because in the original version of Civ 6, which I still played up until recently, the main way to succeed for domination victories was for me to find a weak city on the other content and then take that over and use it as a base of operations to expand. But that is very difficult with loyalty. It's also an issue with Cultural victory as well, because it makes settling a satellite city on another cotenant almost impossible, which is very helpful when it comes to increasing tourism.

 

[reddishrecue]

If you take cities in other continents then you better make sure you got land units as back up. If your ships are that upgraded then you can bomb inland cities if the range allows along with the line of sight that units have. Loyalty does become an issue though on continental maps sometimes though.

 

[vorlon_mi]

@rgp151 this seems like something the developers should have tested against, when releasing the loyalty mechanic -- its effect on different map types, e.g., continents or archipelago.

Steam collects data on active players and hours spent. Does anyone know if they collect any other metadata about the completed games -- such as victory condition, civ played, optional game modes activated? It would be interesting (though potentially having privacy concerns) to know what settings players are choosing, how many are running the expansion packs, and whether or not mods are being used.

 

[steveg700]

The loyalty mechanic is a big problem on non-Pangea type maps, which are what I prefer. Since domination is so simple on Pangea type maps, I always play continents, but loyalty make this a major challenge, because in the original version of Civ 6, which I still played up until recently, the main way to succeed for domination victories was for me to find a weak city on the other content and then take that over and use it as a base of operations to expand. But that is very difficult with loyalty..

@rgp151 this seems like something the developers should have tested against, when releasing the loyalty mechanic -- its effect on different map types, e.g., continents or archipelago.

Well, I don't know that domination victory being less of a by-the-numbers cakewalk on different map types is necessarily indicative of a flawed design.

It's challenging to create beachheads? Nothing inherently wrong with that.

 

[Brave Sir Robin]

Here I thought i was the only one who really disliked this mechanic. Just like the rest of civ 6 it is a really good idea implemented poorly.
The problem is the entire expack is based around this idea. I don't like the way it changes the golden age mechanic from the way it was in civ 1-5.
It makes no sense that you put down a city,and basically have to do nothing for it to be loyal to your CIV,nine tiles out.
you should have to do something for any city other than your capital to be loyal.
I dislike this mechanic so much i use a mod that turns loyalty off & never bought GS .The first time in 25 years I have not bought an expack
nor did i buy but one of the silly fantasy,goofy NFP packs
Ideas :upon founding loyalty only adjacent tiles
station military unit in city +1 ring
build walls +1 one ring
build road to city +1 ring
You see where i am going with, you should have to do something to keep your far away citizens loyal shouldn't you?

 

[steveg700]

In regards to taking a city to stage it as a beachhead, it is weird that the city's loyalty is impacted by its pop. A low-pop city will rebel faster than a high-pop, yet those are the citizens of the enemy civ. Higher pop should mean harder to hold, not easier.

 

[rgp151]

As a later adopter of the new xpacks, I agree that I don't like loyalty. To me it reduces many strategic elements of the game. Lots of stuff I do on the original I can't do now because of loyalty. And again, this is especially true when trying to conquer or settle onto new continents that are already populated. Whether going for Cultural, Religious or Domination victory, settling onto and conquering a city on a new content was always a major part of my strategy. Indeed, I find getting a foothold on a new continent essential for Religious Victory. I haven't gone for a Religious Victory with loyalty in play, but I doubt I will. Again, I don't like Pangea style maps because I think that eliminates many dimension of the game. It makes a whole section of the tech tree almost irrelevant and greatly simplifies most strategies. So I like continents and world maps for the extra dynamic it adds to the game. However when you mix in loyalty it ruins it because it makes expanding past your home territory almost impossible. You can do it, but largely only if you find unclaimed territory in an area surrounded by water, which doesn't always exist.

But for Religious victory in particular, I go for no wars at all, so no expansion by conquest. But it is very important to get a city on another content you are trying to convert, because without that trying to send Apostles from half way around the world across the ocean constantly is a loosing strategy. You need a beachhead with a Holy Site that you can use to keep pumping nearby Apostles and Gurus out of, near the civilizations are you trying to convert. But establishing such a city is next to impossible with loyalty.

Its not quite as bad with Domination, because with Domination you can first raze a few cities to create a perimeter, and then keep a city that doesn't have anything right next to it. It is certainly more difficult, but its not impossible. Its not as bad with Cultural either, because you don't need to expand right next to other cities. I tend to expand into unclaimed islands, etc., and on top of that you'll tend to have high culture anyway, so that helps. But, there are definitely times when, on the original I would drop a city right next to another civ on a different content, because sometimes there are no islands to expand onto and sometimes even when there is, they aren't close enough to get a trade route. So, you need to establish cities close enough for trade routes and sometimes the best option is a small strip of land on another heavily populated continent.

Again, this hurts the most when you are trying not to go to war, because then you can't simply raze cities. So what I find is that loyalty just tips the scales even further in favor of Domination, because it forces you into needing to raze cities.

So yeah, I think the biggest irony is that Loyalty was intended to boost non-Domination strategies, but it does the opposite. It just makes Domination and razing the simpler approach to most situations. It makes late game expansion or especially expansion onto new continents much, much more difficult to the point that, again, its best to conquer and destroy.

 

[Leyrann]

The loyalty mechanic is a big problem on non-Pangea type maps, which are what I prefer. Since domination is so simple on Pangea type maps, I always play continents, but loyalty make this a major challenge, because in the original version of Civ 6, which I still played up until recently, the main way to succeed for domination victories was for me to find a weak city on the other content and then take that over and use it as a base of operations to expand. But that is very difficult with loyalty. It's also an issue with Cultural victory as well, because it makes settling a satellite city on another cotenant almost impossible, which is very helpful when it comes to increasing tourism.

That's... what loyalty is meant to do. Perhaps the single most common sentiment on this forum after release of the original game was 'domination is too easy'.

 

[rgp151]

That's... what loyalty is meant to do. Perhaps the single most common sentiment on this forum after release of the original game was 'domination is too easy'.

What I'm saying is that Loyalty actually makes other victory conditions more difficult, resulting in making Domination even more favorable. Since Loyalty makes peaceful expansion onto other continents almost impossible, the best option is simply to conquer and raze.

 

[Leyrann]

What I'm saying is that Loyalty actually makes other victory conditions more difficult, resulting in making Domination even more favorable. Since Loyalty makes peaceful expansion onto other continents almost impossible, the best option is simply to conquer and raze.

I don't see how peaceful expansion onto other continents is ever needed?

Science victory means you do your own thing until you win.
Diplomatic victory means you want to meet everyone, but proximity is not a factor.
Culture victory means you want to have a trade route to everyone, but on all but the largest maps you can reach everyone through naval trade routes anyway.
Religious victory means you don't have time to expand because you're too busy fueling your apostle spam.

The only victory where expansion onto other continents is anything but an optional bonus is domination.

 

[rgp151]

I don't see how peaceful expansion onto other continents is ever needed?

Science victory means you do your own thing until you win.
Diplomatic victory means you want to meet everyone, but proximity is not a factor.
Culture victory means you want to have a trade route to everyone, but on all but the largest maps you can reach everyone through naval trade routes anyway.
Religious victory means you don't have time to expand because you're too busy fueling your apostle spam.

The only victory where expansion onto other continents is anything but an optional bonus is domination.

Well, that's just not how I play it. I tend to expand a lot. As I said, I view mid-game expansion as essential for religious victory assuming no Pangea type maps. Sending waves of Apostles across vast oceans just isn't feasible. You need a city on the continent to pump out Apostles.

For cultural, you can get by without it, but it often helps a lot. I do always try to expand onto unclaimed territory, like islands, but will also expand onto continents, especially to get quick trade routes that don't require harbors.

Diplomatic victory is just stupid, I never get that, and even when I've tried I get Cultural or Science first.

Yes, true about Science, its the least interactive victory type.

My point is that Loyalty encourages what I consider to be poor behavior. It simply encourages turtling. Just build up a close collection of 7-10 cities and then turtle there and sit going for Science, or alternatively, go for Domination and just raze most cities.

One of the tings that I enjoyed most about standard civ was continuous and late game expansion, getting cities all over the place, going after resources. I'd especially try to identify oil ASAP and then often need to rush a Settler over to some tundra region on another continent to secure it, but now that mostly doesn't work. I mean the positioning of resources also makes Loyalty quite a pain, because you often need to settle some resource that only exists on a few places on the map and you don't always have the luxury of meeting a bunch of conditions to secure the loyalty needed to grab that Oil or Niter or whatever.

So like I said, mostly now its just a matter of either, conquering and razing or turtling, both of which I consider to be the least interactive styles of play.

I like continuous settling, as I find that much more dynamic and interesting, which I guess is why I also like Cultural victory the most, because its the victory condition that benefits the most of having a lot of territory for parks and resorts and wonders, etc. Having said that, you can also go for cultural alliances, which I have done to some benefit, but it doesn't always work out.

 

[Leyrann]

Well, that's just not how I play it. I tend to expand a lot.

So do I, actually. I rarely end a game with fewer than 15 cities, and usually more than 20. And that's with me usually avoiding wars unless I'm going domination.

As I said, I view mid-game expansion as essential for religious victory assuming no Pangea type maps. Sending waves of Apostles across vast oceans just isn't feasible. You need a city on the continent to pump out Apostles.

I disagree. It doesn't exactly matter whether your apostles can get started immediately, or whether they have to travel for 10 turns first. Besides, the brunt of the work is usually done by two or three apostles with the Debater promotion that are on the front line the entire time (and get healed by gurus). Also, there's benefits to having Moksha in an established city for extra faith (and maybe other bonuses? not sure), and you'll want to purchase your apostles in his city for the free second promotion (which also cuts down on the number of apostles you need in total, after all it doubles the chance for getting a good promotion like proselytizer or translator; let alone the combo that can convert an entire civ all by itself).

Also, the mid-game is where I tend to be winning the game if I go religious. If that's the victory type I'm going for, I usually decided on it early on (or even before the game started) and get it pre-200 turns.

For cultural, you can get by without it, but it often helps a lot. I do always try to expand onto unclaimed territory, like islands, but will also expand onto continents, especially to get quick trade routes that don't require harbors.

I get the urge to expand, but it's not like you have to settle a city within loyalty pressure range in order to be in trade route range. Additionally, strategically placed trading posts from earlier trade routes greatly extend your range, and with how tourism scales it's not like having a trade route to every civilization is relevant until you're 150-200 turns in anyway, so you have plenty of time to plan your trading posts.

Diplomatic victory is just stupid, I never get that, and even when I've tried I get Cultural or Science first.

It's a little gimmicky (though less so than in earlier editions of Civ). The most important aspect of a diplomatic victory is actually to learn, over time, what the AI tends to vote in the World Congress. Rather than vote for the option you want to see, you need to vote for what the AI is likely to vote, because that gets you a diplomatic victory point. For example, the AI will always vote to ban whichever luxury resource the most civs have access to, but they themselves do not. And on the other hand, they will almost always only assign a single vote to certain other proposals, such as the Urban Development Treaty, so if you have enough diplo favor, you can enforce your option.

In addition, there's three more things to keep in mind. Make sure you get all three world wonders that give diplomatic victory points, for +7 points, win all emergencies that can give diplomatic victory points (note that most can be won by throwing gold at them, and the great people ones usually occur late enough that you should win them simply because you're ahead of the AI), and last but not least: if you are close to winning a diplomatic victory (I don't know the exact threshold), all the AIs will always vote for you to lose diplomatic victory points, together pooling far too many votes for you to overcome. Therefore, go with the counterintuitive option of voting for yourself to lose diplomatic victory points - just one vote will do. You can't stop it, and by voting along with the rest, you earn a diplomatic victory point from voting with the majority - meaning you effectively only lose 1 point rather than two, and you can put the rest of your diplo favor in the other two proposals, allowing you to earn 2 points there.

My point is that Loyalty encourages what I consider to be poor behavior. It simply encourages turtling. Just build up a close collection of 7-10 cities and then turtle there and sit going for Science, or alternatively, go for Domination and just raze most cities.

I disagree. As I said earlier, I usually end a game with more than 20 cities, and I do not raze cities unless they interfere too much with my planned city placement in an area (usually only happens if an AI forward settles me). Yet, I never have loyalty issues. It's just something you have to calculate in when you decide where to settle or what to conquer.

One of the tings that I enjoyed most about standard civ was continuous and late game expansion, getting cities all over the place, going after resources. I'd especially try to identify oil ASAP and then often need to rush a Settler over to some tundra region on another continent to secure it, but now that mostly doesn't work. I mean the positioning of resources also makes Loyalty quite a pain, because you often need to settle some resource that only exists on a few places on the map and you don't always have the luxury of meeting a bunch of conditions to secure the loyalty needed to grab that Oil or Niter or whatever.

I do this rushing as well, in particular with oil indeed, but it's almost never a problem for me to find a spot where I can get 2-3 resources without the city having loyalty issues. Often on a small island or something like that.

 

[steveg700]

Regarding diplomatic victory, there's always Lady Liberty. She's good for 4 DV points. Crazily broken.

 

[Oberinspektor Derrick]

Aye, I just like using air units (though I still wish there'd be hover units in mainline civ games again), so I tend to field air units whenever I can. The good news is that the AI actually makes use of air fighters now; in some of my recent games, the AI will actively intercept and air strike with them

Still rare though.
Active denial of air space with fighters has so far only happened once in my games, across all these years.
Last game had the AI actually use one AA gun as well, though it had noe clue on how to properly use it unfortunately.

 

[Oberinspektor Derrick]

I disagree. As I said earlier, I usually end a game with more than 20 cities, and I do not raze cities unless they interfere too much with my planned city placement in an area (usually only happens if an AI forward settles me). Yet, I never have loyalty issues. It's just something you have to calculate in when you decide where to settle or what to conquer.

Same, having dealt with loyalty issues so many times now, it rarely blindsides me these days and its more of a nuisance than a hindrance.
That being said, the AI is the one who really suffers from this, so that's enough of a reason to nerf the whole mechanic in my opinion (unless they fix the AI, but that's a lot less likely to happen).

 

[steveg700]

Same, having dealt with loyalty issues so many times now, it rarely blindsides me these days and its more of a nuisance than a hindrance.
That being said, the AI is the one who really suffers from this, so that's enough of a reason to nerf the whole mechanic in my opinion (unless they fix the AI, but that's a lot less likely to happen).

Agreed that loyalty simply comes across as a system that has some controls that need to be learned. Can't simply throw in the towel when getting hit with that' "rebellion in 3 or 4" indicator. There are techniques that can be shared by anyone who is interested.

And yes, the AI is clobbered way worse than the player by loyalty. It is weird that the AI will settle in a -20 area and not even send a governor. Bad programming. I confess tho, it's one of the reasons I keep playing into the late game. I enjoy the city-flipping way more than the city-blitzing.

However, I have more-or-less abandoned the Bread & Circuses project. The AI doesn't seem to employ it, so it goes on the same list as as aircraft and healing religious units. If I'm wrong on that, I'd like to know.

Admittedly, it's hard to find points of demarcation there. The AI will convert all of its tiles into farm if it can, and doesn't like to crank oat traders. It has a lot of basic flaws for which I have to hope the diff. setting compensates. Like those extra settlers.

 

[reddishrecue]

When I have domination issues in continents like loyalty, I tend to stay in the continent where I was from and keep the cities I have there to pursue a different kind of victory perhaps if possible. I already expanded a lot enough in the continent that I'm in to pursue something different if loyalty becomes an issue and I have a civilization throughout a continent that is large enough to compete with other victory types. With a larger empire I can also catch up to rival civilizations and compete with them in other victory conditions there.

Loyalty wasn't really that much of an issue in continental games in earlier versions like civ 4 or civ 5 but it was hard to wipe out a civilization in civ 4 because of 1 tile cities that AI loved to build in and were hard to get to since marine warfare wasn't as advanced as it is in civ 5 or 6. Only boarded units could attack 1 tile cities with culture in civ 4 but it was really difficult because there were amphibious penalties and unit attack reductions from a ship and you had to build a few triremes to get a proper stack going on the sea. By far, civ 5 seems to be the easiest version to dominate in because there are good sea units that can bombard inland if sight is provided and there isn't any loyalty issues or rebellions like there are in civ 6.

 

[CoconutTank]

I mean, even w/out taking loyalty into account, going to war in a faraway place that requires lots of travel to reach is a pretty bad idea anyway. Leapfrogging with cities or one's forces and making sure one's forces can be replaced quickly is a good habit, and loyalty has only enforced that imo.