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

God I hate loyalty. Worst mechanic EVER.

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Sherlock, Feb 22, 2019.

  1. Yzman

    Yzman Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Messages:
    2,692
    Location:
    Illinois, USA
    I think the system inherently makes sense, even if it can be frustrating sometime.

    Many times when people take a city it is surrounded by the AIs cities. Try to think of that in the real world

    Can you imagine Canada coming in, taking say Chicago and expecting they would be able to easily hold it?

    Hell no, Chicago would be revolting in "3 turns".
     
  2. Sagax

    Sagax Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,209
    If Canada takes Chicago by military force and destruction - then yes, they will be able to hold it until the US does something about it. Not Chicago.
     
    BrotherInJah likes this.
  3. Yzman

    Yzman Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Messages:
    2,692
    Location:
    Illinois, USA
    Most things in this game are an abstraction, and I don't agree. Civilians would rise up, and loyalty is all about the effect of the surrounding area. You would find that a city of the size of Chicago would be almost impossible for a foreign government to hold without killing mass amounts of population. And the way to kill mass population in this game is razing. So if you aren't razing, then you are trying to keep the population alive and that means you have to deal with them.
     
    SirWill90 likes this.
  4. Haggbart

    Haggbart Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2010
    Messages:
    851
    Location:
    Norway
    Are we seriously discussing if Chicago would rebel to Canadian invasion? Is next step to discuss which Canadian governor IRL has the right promotion to stop it from happening?
     
  5. Yzman

    Yzman Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Messages:
    2,692
    Location:
    Illinois, USA
    Oh my god, its an example to show what the mechanic is trying to do. You can't just take a huge city in the middle of a large country and expect to be able to hold it with no issues.

    A real world example may be Texas flipping from Mexico to new nation to USA.

    Or a place like Crimea, becoming Russian. I am not trying to argue politics or real world scenarios, I am just saying that is what the mechanic is trying to do, and logically it makes some sense.
     
  6. Haggbart

    Haggbart Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2010
    Messages:
    851
    Location:
    Norway
    Look, I completely agree about the mechanics and what it's trying to do. I just think the discussion "would this happen in the same way IRL" is irrelevant and silly, because obviously there can be good mechanics in Civ that are not entirely realistic, as well as pretty realistic ones that do not work in the context of a civ-game.
     
  7. CyberChrist

    CyberChrist You caught my attention

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2001
    Messages:
    1,424
    Location:
    The Matrix
    IMO then denouncing a civ should cut their Loyalty influence over your cities in half (or so), but at the same time it would also cut your Loyalty influnce over their cities in half. The same should hold true if war was delcared. The exception to this would be for cities that originally belonged to the civ you have denounced or are at war with - such cities should be influenced by the regular rate or perhaps even have the rate increased.
     
  8. Yzman

    Yzman Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Messages:
    2,692
    Location:
    Illinois, USA
    That wasn't the point of the my example, nor was your response needed.

    I agree that mechanics don't have to follow real world thinking, I was merely pointing out the fact that people seem to think taking over a city that is in the heart of an empire and not doing things to prevent it from flipping should be reasonable. Using common sense and real world thinking, it obviously makes sense that if you don't take the precautions you can't just hold onto cities that are surrounded by the rest of the civ easily. Especially when you consider the game is just a general representation of concepts, and not really detailed.
     
  9. Haggbart

    Haggbart Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2010
    Messages:
    851
    Location:
    Norway
    I have no problem with accepting that, nor do I have an a problem with the counter-argument "if the military pressure is big enough (like having a huge standing army around the city) the city can't flip. You are both right, I'm just saying that it doesn't matter because the mechanic was put in place to solve specific issues in the game which was snowballing via military conquest and forward settling, not to emulate real life. And thus any argument refering to a real life situation is a distraction from the issues which loyalty was supposed to fix in the game.
     
    BrotherInJah likes this.
  10. Sagax

    Sagax Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,209
    From the mechanics standpoint, that would be because of negative amenities - something I always thought had less weight in the Loyalty pressure than it should have. Also - the population does get reduced when you conquer the city, so "deal with population" is already kind of reflected in the game.

    By the way, a quick note: I don't think people are debating about taking a city in the middle of the enemy's empire, that's for sure absurd. But flipping at the borders does get weird sometimes.

    Although we are talking about the military aspect of the Loyalty system, the peaceful aspect works based on the same formula - and that's where it gets even more questionable at times. You don't see Nepal or Bhutan dissolving into China and India, after all. Yes, the game is an abstraction. But it also clearly tries to balance it out with immersion, by the virtue of being a game drawing from world history. I'm not against the system per se (and I think OP's complaint is an overreaction), but I do think that the numbers under the hood have issues.

    Forward settling - solved, though at the cost of colonization.

    Snowballing via military conquest - oh hell no. If anything, it made the military snowballing issue worse. By eliminating the middle ground, the strategy now is pretty much "go big or go home" - and players will go big. Firaxis themselves, even commented during one of the GS livestreams how they were planning to conquer all the way to the AI capital to remove the loyalty pressure. If you are set on conquest, you have already made your mind - in which case Loyalty is an incentive for you to snowball REALLY hard. (Also - we are disregarding the pillage and flip exploit for now)
     
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2019
  11. Weraptor

    Weraptor Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2017
    Messages:
    501
    Gender:
    Male
    Loyalty is an excellent mechanic, it got even better with the Grievances system.
     
    Craig_Sutter likes this.
  12. AriochIV

    AriochIV Analyst

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,617
    Location:
    San Jose, California
    The fresh angst over a feature that's now a year old is curious. Surely by now players have learned to:
    • Have a governor ready to move into newly taken cities
    • Always keep a garrison in affected cities
    • Use the +loyalty policies for governor and garrison
    • Take surrounding cities to reduce the amount of nearby foreign population
    • Don't panic. If a city flips, keep taking down enemy cities before worrying about taking it back. Keep units near cities that will flip to deal with the hostile units that will spawn
    • Sometimes you'll need to raze a city that you just can't hold; if so, wait until it becomes a free city to raze it to avoid unnecessary grievances
    My only real problem with the loyalty mechanic is that
    1. The mechanism for dealing with loyalty (capture more cities) is at odds with the diplomatic disincentives to capturing more cities.
    2. The AI is terrible at dealing with loyalty.
     
    Mr Jon of Cheam and SirWill90 like this.
  13. UWHabs

    UWHabs Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    3,998
    Location:
    Toronto
    The biggest change I think they need is to figure out a better way to handle loyalty in occupied cities. It doesn't really make sense that my capturing Toronto would have big loyalty problems, but once I capture Montreal and Ottawa nearby, suddenly the people of Toronto are welcoming me with open arms.
     
  14. Disgustipated

    Disgustipated Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,017
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    I think loyalty is about right where it needs to be. Yeah sometimes I get annoyed, but that's just because of my own mistakes often times. I ended up in a dark age in my Sweden game because diplomatic victory was taking so long, and I ran out of things to give era score. I had one city that I put close to the border with Germany that had problems. But with Limitanei and the modern version of Praetorium (it's called something else), and a unit inside, it was enough to keep the city stable, even without bothering with religion. My amenities were great which helped.

    The only time I run into loyalty problems is when conquering. And honestly you should have loyalty problems when conquering. This is working as intended.

    The only thing I would add is maybe a card that would make it easier to settle on other continents for colonies. We have a card already, but it's not strong enough. This would help England out.
     
    SirWill90 likes this.
  15. BrotherInJah

    BrotherInJah 60% of the time works every time

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    395
    Location:
    Location, location, location..
    It doesn't.. i was referring to pressure mechanism and both rel and loy suffer from its idiocies.

    Same arguments were raised in defend of continent generation mech, yet finally fxs admitted it was flawed.. same will be with pressure thingy. I simply hate the fact it is completely detached from other features, just add some wonky layer..

    Don't get my wrong, i like the idea of loyalty, i hate the execution.
     
  16. kb27787

    kb27787 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,915
    I second this... make sure that each OCCUPIED city does not exert any loyalty pressure at all and problem solved. You only get it to help out AFTER the war and the AI cedes the cities to you... OR until you eliminate the original owner civ of the city (or maybe even not... we can even discuss the possibility of civs "rising from the dead" spontaneously; make it permanent even if you eliminate the owner... if it goes into a free city status due to pressure from other civs again, the dead civ "resurrects"). Also, make loyalty pressure from cities which are not 100% loyal scale down accordingly (a city with only 50% loyalty will only exert half the pressure).

    This should slow down warmongering completely.
     
  17. SirWill90

    SirWill90 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2016
    Messages:
    106
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Morgantown, WV, USA
    I guess my statement was more in reference to cities revolting back to the home state after being conquered than about cities just deciding to join a neighboring nation. Still, without attempting some kind of historical dissertation I will provide a few quick region names that spring to mind when I think of historical examples of contested regions with a tendency to be hard to militarily conquer: the area once known as Judea, now Israel and Palestine, from antiquity to the present day; Alsace-Lorraine in the area between France and Germany; any number of Balkan/Greek/Turkish areas. There are countless examples. I don't think the loyalty mechanic in the game is perfect, but I think it does a good basic job of approximating the tendency of humans to retain and fight over larger group identities resulting in constant conflict when one group marginally controls the territory formerly controlled by another.

    As far as the "let's become their nation instead" well yes I think that area in game might be able to use some tweaking. Maybe there should be a larger loyalty effect on conquered cities and less of one just for settling near another empire's city? I don't know but as another poster said, after a year of this I would think it's not that hard for most players that have been around at least a year to deal with, it's not perfect but after a while it stopped bothering me much.
     
  18. Orkonkel

    Orkonkel Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2019
    Messages:
    4
    Except this is not really the case for large periods of history, until the rise of romantic nationalism in the nineteenth century. The Ottomans controlled the Balkans, Greece, Anatolia, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Tunis, et cetera, et cetera for centuries, and the Turks were a vast minority in this sprawling empire. An empire which included Judea. There are countless of examples of people in territories not rising up to arms after territories shifted hands during war. If anything, people were more keen on revolting due to religious oppression, high taxes, famine or any other such thing, than simply the lands they lived on being transferred to another state. Unfortunately, Civ does not mimic any of these conditions.

    As for good gameplay: conquering a border city after declaring war and it automagically reverting to its former owner in three turns without any possible way to interfere just frustrated the hell out of me. It is counter-intuitive to have to fight your way to the core of an empire before starting to take cities. In any other strategic game where warfare is included, you attack an enemy from the outside and in. This just feels wonky to me. And although I will get used to the system and game it so it benefits me (or at least does not harm me as much), it still is a backwards and inelegant way of defeating your enemy.

    Now, a focus on destabalizing enemy lands, on fighting guerilla warfare or using scorched earth tactics where depopulation, loyalty shifts, or even enslavement of enemy pops is a thing (let me carry home their citizens to my capitol please) would improve the current system vastly.
     
    SirWill90 likes this.
  19. jozef57

    jozef57 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2009
    Messages:
    179
    Location:
    netherlands/deventer
    i not agre i think civ 6 Gs is getting clode to be be the best civ ever
     
  20. Leathaface

    Leathaface Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    1,699
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cork, Ireland
    I really like the loyalty mechanics, it rewards you for putting effort into getting more housing via extra population plus if you can skillfully enter a Golden Age you can hold onto cities easier.

    But if you're sure you really, really can't hold a city then don't capture it?
     

Share This Page