1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Do you care about Ages and Loyalty?

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by man_in_finance, Jan 11, 2019.

?

Do you pay much attention to Loyalty and Ages?

  1. No not really

    9 vote(s)
    6.8%
  2. A little, with a focus on Ages

    32 vote(s)
    24.1%
  3. A little, with a focus on Loyalty

    12 vote(s)
    9.0%
  4. Yes, both

    56 vote(s)
    42.1%
  5. Yes, and both heavily impact decisions.

    24 vote(s)
    18.0%
  1. UWHabs

    UWHabs Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,802
    Location:
    Toronto
    What I've always found a problem with is that new cities you gain are suddenly productive for you, even during war, and that if you have a large war going on, it's only a mild inconvenience back home. Like, in real life, during WW2, the whole world basically shut down everything else to go to war. It's not like the world was at War, and Chicago was building a new auditorium for theatre shows. But in civ, it's too easy to build your army early, and never really worry about it again and just march the same troops all over the planet.
     
  2. steveg700

    steveg700 Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2012
    Messages:
    2,740
    Loyalty is a well-implemented system, all-in-all. It legitimizes governors to an extent, which I think on the whole are a poor and unthematic fit for Civ.

    I like getting golden ages, but when I get them I don't feel like they amount to much most of the time. Certainly if I'm at war with Lataro, nothing I'm getting from the GA is worth the hassle of dealing with him getting a +10 combat strength bonus. Not a good civ design, that.
     
  3. WillowBrook

    WillowBrook Lurker

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2004
    Messages:
    2,690
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    Oh, yes, those two are the best game mechanics added in R&F. Both could use tweaks (e.g., conquered cities no longer on the edge of your empire should still require special attention for a time even after peace is signed; some additional differentiation between ages - even if only visual - would be nice), but I love that you can't carelessly forward settle or conquer any more, and the ages and era score make me feel even more like I'm accomplishing (or occasionally failing to accomplish) stuff. Not to mention the fun golden age dedications.
     
    Leathaface, Kaan Boztepe and Karmah like this.
  4. steveg700

    steveg700 Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2012
    Messages:
    2,740
    What I'm not so crazy about is a free state being able to magically produce two top-of-the-line units per turn. if I could produce units like that, I'd crave independence as well.

    And then they attack anyone nearby like barbarians rather than just defend themselves. Hey, dudes, you're about to flip to my civ in about three turns chill out, or I'll raze the lot of you!
     
  5. SammyKhalifa

    SammyKhalifa Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2003
    Messages:
    4,631
    I like it, but it adds to how you're better off utterly wiping out a civ totally than limited attacks.
     
    WillowBrook likes this.
  6. Eliminator_Sr

    Eliminator_Sr Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2016
    Messages:
    565
    Gender:
    Male
    This. I rarely pay attention to loyalty and just focus on knocking out the capital ASAP in combination with a few satellite cities. I guess it promotes a little more military strategy in that you might have to divide your army but it's still pretty straightforward. I think loyalty would work much better if opponents presented more of a threat. Right now I only look at it when settling new cities and I avoid hexes with large negatives. I can see it having appeal for completely peaceful play though, but I usually play opportunistically.

    I disagree about ages though. I think those are fairly well balanced in terms of achieving points as you can get significant points through religion, exploration, district placement, etc. I also think the ages create a fun dynamic where I am scrambling to get those last few points in any way possible to secure a golden age. It often comes down to a few points for me in the early eras which is good design IMO.
     
  7. Kaan Boztepe

    Kaan Boztepe Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2018
    Messages:
    75
    Gender:
    Male
    i like the ages mechanic a lot. esspecially that it ties to some other parts like road speed and casus belli and some research speed. as for loyalty i dont believe it is used enough. there should be an inherited loyalty penalty for conquering cities until the citizens either convert ( at something like 20 turns per 1 pop ) or there is some project that is available once a governor is there. also i agree that going to war is vey advantegous at the moment. maybe lose some era points for losing units/cities or getting pillaged?
     
    WillowBrook likes this.
  8. SupremacyKing2

    SupremacyKing2 Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2014
    Messages:
    4,196
    Location:
    Indiana
    I do care about getting Golden Ages and I do actively try to get them because they can give you a nice boost. The "Wish You Were Here" GA bonus is very nice when going for a culture victory. The GA casus belli is great for late game wars. But I don't really care about Dark Ages. Getting one, does nothing serious to my civ. In terms of loyalty, I only care when I am capturing cities since loyalty can cause newly captured cities to flip if you are not careful. But generally, loyalty is never a serious problem.
     
  9. Starwars

    Starwars Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2017
    Messages:
    198
    I like the idea of ages but I find that their usefulness are pretty... well, they vary a lot. I think some sort of rebalance there would be nice. My biggest issue with the whole system is that leftover points do nothing. To me, that's *really* bad design and just feels like the whole thing was designed over a coffeebreak or something.

    Dark Ages could be more punishing, without a doubt. I also think that the Dark Age policies need a rebalance. I think the only one I've ever used is the one that gives you more food and production for internal traderoutes.

    I really like the Loyalty system, I think it's the best thing R&F added. Though like others have pointed out, you can beat it pretty easily if you're just going full warmonger, which is a shame. Maybe there could be something where each conquered city would be more and more disloyal or something.
    But if just playing more "normally", I think it adds a nice layer to the game. Just wish the AI wouldn't sometimes plop down those completely stupid cities. Like... I'm fine with them sometimes putting down *questionable* cities, that may or may not flip depending on how things go. But sometimes they still plop down those cities that just *will* flip.
     
    Elhoim likes this.
  10. Midgardsormr

    Midgardsormr Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2007
    Messages:
    104
    Location:
    Wichita, KS, USA
    I've had some pretty good experiences with loyalty and ages. In one recent game I'd been struggling to hold one edge of my empire against Tamar—she was, of course, chaining golden ages and she had some very high population cities. I'd wiped out Gilgamesh, who had been the buffer between Tamar and me, and I was having to devote a lot of attention to the loyalty of those cities. Then Tamar fell into a dark age at the same time I went golden. Since I'd already built some Entertainment Complexes, my Bread & Circus projects went from defensive to offensive. Suddenly her kingdom collapsed from under her. I think I gobbled up five or six cities from her in the Renaissance, and a handful from China and the Zulu, too. My production exploded, and I rode it into a SV. In vanilla, I'd have had to wage an expensive war to take that territory. With R&F, I absorbed most of Georgia and yet still maintained a very lucrative alliance with her all the way to the end.

    In my current game as Montezuma, I've just taken Tblisi, and I'm about to drop three settlers around it to stabilize loyalty in the region (Harvest pantheon + Renaissance Monumentality is killer). A couple of cities behind my lines should flip relatively quickly, sparing me from needing to conquer them, and letting me push my invasion deeper. There are some interesting decisions to be made due to loyalty pressure, particularly since the golden age is about to end, and I'm going to have to watch out for the shift. Without that mechanic, it would just be a matter of rushing toward the next capital, but with it I have to think about securing my gains instead.

    Loyalty isn't an issue in every game, but there are certainly some where it plays a huge role.
     
    WillowBrook likes this.
  11. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    8,095
    @man_in_finance Have a look at the loyalty guide above my signature, your spreadsheet is a starter, it has been 99% sussed out, only unknown is an odd decimal point value which is irrelevant.

    For me loyalty is important but now so ingrained I barely notice my attack and build style changed. For ages, I place a lot of emphasis on getting that first one as you can then roll into them for the rest of the game with a bit of luck. Monumentality is just so powerful.
     
  12. man_in_finance

    man_in_finance Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2019
    Messages:
    47
    Gender:
    Male
    @Victoria Yes I read that whilst researching and trying to figure things out and found it useful. Personally I prefer rearranging your formula to: pressure = (domestic - foreign) / min[domestic, foreign], you will observe this is the same as your (1 - ratio) except the direction (positive/negative) is apparent and subjectively I just find it more aesthetic.

    As with regards to the decimal I agree with you that it was annoying, yet not too concerning so I too did not investigate much, I speculated on the following:
    • 10% per tile was not cumulative but multiplicative (this seemed to be a v large change and counter to Civ6's traditional way of describing these effects)
    • Population was decimalised according to food accumulation (this I think might fix some errors but introduce others, it will also make loyalty too dynamic for players to understand?)
    • A base digit was added to either domestic or foreign pressure, or just to the denominator itself, in order to avoid divide by zero errors (where foreign is zero).
    The last suggestion is a good one in my opinion. It is the quickest fix to a programming bug they probably encountered and hoped no one really noticed the small change.

    If you add 0.5 base pressure (which seems like a sensible number) to both foreign and domestic the numerator is unaffected but the dominator is increased and the pressures in my Kongo-England example all come in line after rounding. Try it on your own examples?

    By the way there is bug on new settler loyalty lens - it accounts for the Age of neighbouring foreign Civilizations and cities but assumes the 1 Population of your new city will be in a normal age and not your actual age. Also for your guide you might note that a capital city exerts pressure twice, once for its population modified by its age and once just normally - I put this in the spreadsheet.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2019
    Victoria and acluewithout like this.
  13. Trav'ling Canuck

    Trav'ling Canuck Warlord Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2018
    Messages:
    2,657
    Gender:
    Male
    Clever on all 3 of these ideas! :thumbsup:
     
  14. mitsho

    mitsho Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2003
    Messages:
    6,646
    Location:
    Europe, more or less
    I like the ages system and I hope they will expand upon it in upcoming Civ games. The eras could be even more distinct and make you feel like playing different games. That would be the answer to the old problem of late game being a clickfest and a drag: make it into its own minigame.

    Loyalty is fine, but (see above) too complicated for me to want to try to understand and thus I do not optimize it.
     
  15. Hammurabbit

    Hammurabbit Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 9, 2017
    Messages:
    158
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sweden
    For me eras are very important to keep track of, for loyalty reasons. My nearest opponent getting a golden age, when I'm getting a dark one can be a real threat to border cities.
    I think the system works fairly well, but would like to see some more ways to counter loyalty issues, especially given that you don't have huge control over the era score.
     
  16. comatosedragon

    comatosedragon Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Messages:
    1,026
    Location:
    Rockingham VA {616}
    I have never had to worry about Loyalty, ever. Probably says more about my playstyle than actual game mechanics.

    Ages make a huge difference (I have never accomplished a Heroic age; however). Monumentality is extremely powerful, maybe too much so.
     
  17. Lord Lakely

    Lord Lakely Unintentionally a feminist.

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    Messages:
    1,206
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Belgium
    I find loyalty important enough in the early game, if i roll a warmongering civ. Low population in my cities or an early dark age actively hurt my early military conquest and i try to get those in order before i start my invasion, if I can afford to do so. Late game, much less so: you'll have a strong enough army to flip back cities if needed and it's really easy to chain GAs with the Taj Mahal + a few high prod cities, just spam Wonders for the +5 Era Score a piece.
     
  18. Leathaface

    Leathaface Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,674
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cork, Ireland
    Loyalty can be very important when settling a new city so I look out for it for sure. The ages system can give you big boosts if you enter a golden age, it effects my games for sure.

    I think they are a very nice addition to Civ VI.
     
  19. Elhoim

    Elhoim Iron Tower Studio Dev

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2004
    Messages:
    1,880
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Isidro, Argentina.
    In general I really like both systems.

    What I dislike about the loyalty system is the lack of penalties attached to razing, especially as it becomes almost like an exploit if you want to raze a city. Basically, attack, leave the city empty, let it become a "free" city and then capture + raze. I think that if you captured a city during a war, and flips before it's not occupied, it should skip the free city phase and turn directly to the previous owner.

    Basically, I would have preferred a "nationality" system.
     
  20. _ViKinG_

    _ViKinG_ Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2013
    Messages:
    237
    Loyalty i dont like so mutch. Ages would be cool but its mostly dark ages here later in game
     

Share This Page