Do you care about Ages and Loyalty?

[man_in_finance]

As I have been going through the game, learning different aspects, I confess that I never really bothered about Loyalty and even less about Ages. Sure it doesn't sound particularly nice to experience a Dark Age but it probably means those era scores missed are going to appear soon giving you a boost next time. And the extra policies or dedications get picked or ignored and the game goes on.

But, in a recent game I had a very contested border with Fungus Khan, and noticed, to my amusement, that his cities, which were large, were revolting fast and his border receded basically to his capital. No more complaints about the size of my.. uhhh.. cavalry now.

Anyway I decided to learn about the mechanics of Loyalty and I believe it is quite a clever system, and powerful when you know what you are doing. On their first iteration the designers obviously thought it was a bit too static (and boring) on a civ's borders and quite easy to bring to stability. But with the introduction of Dark and Golden Age modifiers it is a completely different beast and sole the reason for the Mongolian collapse. For me, at least, loyalty seems to be the primary reason for caring about Ages. I'm interested in hearing people's views on the matter.

I'll share a spreadsheet which calculates loyalty pressure exerted by nearby citizens. Play with it and see the effects of Ages... It's configured to replicate (in one part) the Kongo-England example http://civilization.wikia.com/wiki/Loyalty_(Civ6) here.

 

[Disgustipated]

For me, at least, loyalty seems to be the primary reason for caring about Ages

Pretty much for me as well. The exception being later in the game I like a golden age so I can choose a dedication to help me win the game. I do like a medieval golden for builders with faith, but otherwise I don't care that much.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I like the way Ages lend structure to the game, I think they're a good addition for that alone.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I do try to leverage Loyalty when I can. I usually annex at least a couple of cities per game that way.

Ages don't do enough, imo. I think they're too timid, like the Devs didn't want anything to be a "game changer." This seems to be part of their overall design philosophy, not just in regards to Ages, so if you play Civ VI, you've kind of chosen to roll with that. Unlike many other things, though, the effects of Ages don't seem to stack with much else. Earning Era Score points is just sort of its own mini-game in most of the games I play. I stopped pursuing things that awarded Era Score, not because it felt more natural, but because I realized that it just didn't matter a whole lot in the bigger picture.

 

[Jewman]

I just had a game as Spain where I set up a faith economy and beelined for gunpowder. Very good start, but the faith economy came at the cost of a gold economy and era score, so I entered into a dark age right around the time I wanted to conquer the continent with conquistadors. So even though I had a ton of faith to buy more than enough conquistadors to conquer the world twice over, I couldn't support gold upkeep and keep the cities I conquered loyal without spending a lot of resources and time.The invasion was successful of course but it was very slow and I had to sell all of my resources for whatever lump cash I could get just to keep my economy afloat long enough to stabilize. Being in a golden age would have made life a lot easier because I wouldn't have needed to garrison so many cities just to keep them from flipping.

Side Note: The +5 attack to melee units from Dark Age Policy Twilight Valor, combined with the +4 attack for fighting civilizations of another religion, +10 attack for having a religious unit adjacent to and +5 from great generals made my conquistadors UNSTOPPABLE. Three conquistadors single-handedly took down 12 cities, one shotting every single wall/unit... it was a massacre. Since my faith was pretty useless for buying units (cuz I couldn't afford the upkeep) I actually bought a great general which was instrumental to making the conquistadors move swiftly, once they all had +1 movement from promotions, on top of great general movement, they were 79 attack 4 movement killing machines converting everyone by force.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Like much of the rest of Civ 6, the Era Score system is also fundamentally geared to favour warmongering. When fighting, you get all of the era score opportunities available to peaceful players, plus a whole set of additional ones, too. Which is why many people find they roll from Golden Age to Golden Age when playing domination games, without having to pay attention to era score.

The same is true for the Loyalty system. It's only a nerf to limited war, of the sort the AI has been taught to use, where it takes a city or two and then offers peace. That leaves the captured city vulnerable. If instead of taking a city you take all the cities, there's no loyalty issues. Mind, you also get no loyalty issues when playing peacefully, either. Loyalty's really geared to just mess with the sort of playstyle the AI has been taught to play, where you're a little bit aggressive instead of being purely peaceful or wiping other civs out completely.

 

[Naeshar]

Ages from RnF are definitely better than the vague tech/civis progression vanilla had.
Loyalty is in 90% of my gameplay useless, except on border cases. And limits conquest a very little. Never anything a good governor could not solve.

 

[Steamboat Willem]

Like much of the rest of Civ 6, the Era Score system is also fundamentally geared to favour warmongering. When fighting, you get all of the era score opportunities available to peaceful players, plus a whole set of additional ones, too. Which is why many people find they roll from Golden Age to Golden Age when playing domination games, without having to pay attention to era score.

The same is true for the Loyalty system. It's only a nerf to limited war, of the sort the AI has been taught to use, where it takes a city or two and then offers peace. That leaves the captured city vulnerable. If instead of taking a city you take all the cities, there's no loyalty issues. Mind, you also get no loyalty issues when playing peacefully, either. Loyalty's really geared to just mess with the sort of playstyle the AI has been taught to play, where you're a little bit aggressive instead of being purely peaceful or wiping other civs out completely.

I'd really like to see:
1) Conquered cities have negative loyalty that slowly decays over time
2) Cities getting negative loyalty, increasing with the distance from your capital.
3) The effects under 1) and 2) increasing with difficulty, being mostly negligible up to Prince.

 

[Steamboat Willem]

I don't have the experience that Ages don't do much. I've played coastal civs with a Free Enquiry Golden Age, and the Golden Age effect roughly doubles my science output.

 

[darkace77450]

As someone who's always developed my cities' populations, loyalty didn't have much of an impact on the way I play. Era scores, on the other hand, have changed the way I approach the game. I now target specific eras for Dark Ages - though it's often difficult to avoid Normal Ages - because I want to run certain Dark Age policy cards. I likewise time my colonial expansion to coincide with a Heroic Age for the various bonuses for settling on new continents.

Like much of the rest of Civ 6, the Era Score system is also fundamentally geared to favour warmongering. When fighting, you get all of the era score opportunities available to peaceful players, plus a whole set of additional ones, too. Which is why many people find they roll from Golden Age to Golden Age when playing domination games, without having to pay attention to era score.

I don't know if it's as cut and dry as that. There are historic moments like population milestones and fully developed districts that I imagine builders achieve far more frequently than warmongers.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

There are historic moments like population milestones and fully developed districts that I imagine builders achieve far more frequently than warmongers.

I'm not sure there are. You only get the large cities and amazing districts scores once, and they're as easy to get while fighting as while not fighting.

 

[acluewithout]

I'd really like to see:
1) Conquered cities have negative loyalty that slowly decays over time
2) Cities getting negative loyalty, increasing with the distance from your capital.
3) The effects under 1) and 2) increasing with difficulty, being mostly negligible up to Prince.

Yup. That.

I'd actually add that, for captured cities, the rate of decay is slower the more conquered cities you have. Forcing you to take empires slowly in little bites.

 

[UWHabs]

I pay attention to both:
-Generally speaking, at the start of an era, I first figure out if I am "likely" to be able to get a golden age for the next era. If I am, then I'll spend a little more time making sure to max out my achievements.
-When you get close to the end, that's where the tough decisions come. Sometimes I'll try to hold off getting era score to push for the dark age, sometimes I try to make sure I can buy that last great person to avoid the dark age or get to the golden age. Nothing worse than coming 1 point short.
-As for loyalty, generally speaking, I don't care about it, until I do. Ever try to make a beachhead into a new civ while you're in a dark age? Even throwing in a governor and the policy cards, I have to rush to capture the next city just to get that 2-3 city group on the new continent. Sometimes I realize I can't do it, so I abandon the city and just plan to recapture it when it flips

Every now and then I have to worry about loyalty in my "core" empire, if I have a city up close to a neighbour. But even then, rarely do I have to go further than just making sure I have a governor there.

 

[Xmonger]

Yes it's another mechanic. Not as powerful as much of the other mechanics maybe but certainly useful. For example getting an early game Golden age means I hustled and explored the terrain adequately.

 

[darkace77450]

I'm not sure there are. You only get the large cities and amazing districts scores once, and they're as easy to get while fighting as while not fighting.

Are they? Do people generally have cities with populations of 20+ when they're warmongering?

 

[UWHabs]

Are they? Do people generally have cities with populations of 20+ when they're warmongering?

I do. Well, maybe not 20+, but 15+. Basically my cities back home just keep going on their merry way while my army is pulverizing the continent. The only thing that slows them down is the reduced amenities from the new cities and warmongering.

 

[darkace77450]

I do. Well, maybe not 20+, but 15+. Basically my cities back home just keep going on their merry way while my army is pulverizing the continent. The only thing that slows them down is the reduced amenities from the new cities and warmongering.

That's what I was wondering. Are there enough amenities to placate a conquered neighbors and keep cities of 20 or 25 citizens happy at the same time. Not that the 1 or 2 era score from having a city with a population of 25 is a game-changer, but it's something that peaceful builders can shoot for.

 

[blackcatatonic]

I care about both.

Loyalty was the best thing about R&F for me. Ages are tied to the mechanic and are also good, but could have been implemented in a more interesting way. I want Dark Ages to feel more punishing - if I decide to shoot for a Heroic Age, make me pay for it! Make it be a real risk. I also would like for the Dark Age policies to actually feel worth taking. I've never once been in a situation where the positive outweighed the negative for me.

I love the way loyalty impacts the spread of empires and how it needs to be considered when conquering cities. It never felt realistic to me that the AI could just plop a city down next to my borders and short of anticipating that and blocking its path with units, there was no way to stop it. Now, when they try that more often than not they can't hold the city for long, which is as it should be.

 

[man_in_finance]

I care about both.

Loyalty was the best thing about R&F for me. Ages are tied to the mechanic and are also good, but could have been implemented in a more interesting way. I want Dark Ages to feel more punishing - if I decide to shoot for a Heroic Age, make me pay for it! Make it be a real risk. I also would like for the Dark Age policies to actually feel worth taking. I've never once been in a situation where the positive outweighed the negative for me.

I love the way loyalty impacts the spread of empires and how it needs to be considered when conquering cities. It never felt realistic to me that the AI could just plop a city down next to my borders and short of anticipating that and blocking its path with units, there was no way to stop it. Now, when they try that more often than not they can't hold the city for long, which is as it should be.

It would be easier to make it more punishing by increasing the modifiers, and I don't you disagree with you here. There are a lot of good views in this thread and I agree with a lot of blackcataonic comments. I find that entertainment districts have a lot more value now that I realise that can basically be used to gain cities quite easily, whilst also if you can keep your population ecstatic gain a lot of bonuses in other areas.

 

[chazzycat]

As a mostly peaceful player, the ages have far more impact for me than loyalty. The golden age dedications are quite powerful, especially free inquiry and monumentality. Seeing as how loyalty is mostly an anti-warmonger mechanic, it barely affects me.