Loyalty is one of the best new ideas they came up with. What was sickening pre-loyalty was the chaotic settling where the AI, with all its bonuses, would cross your entire land to plant a stupid city in your backyard. No more. Of course, you have to adapt to the new conditions, and cannot do the same or similar. A little more planning, that's all.
With all respect to loyalty system, this argument baffles me the most.
So that's it, that's the ultimate purpose of the entire complicated Loyalty system of civic revolts representing internal instability, to slap some fix on stupid AI bordergore? Wouldn't it be easier to program AI to settle cities close to each other (unless exception x), or introduce far simpler and more direct mechanic of "you need to settle in x furthest range from your borders (unless sea colony)"?
Loyalty system does indees fix that problem, but for me it does it in the most convoluted and most ahistorical way possible.
In human history civs indeed settled civs next to each other instead of "forward settling", because of
obvious logistics (and the fact that the world wasn't free to traverse and settle wherever you want, like in civ).
But they didn't do that "because of the risk of spontaneous peaceful revolt of their colonies to whoever had the highest population nearby".
My biggest problem with civ6 loyalty system as a (crazy) solution to forward settling & bordergore is the fact how it makes overseas colonies essentially impossible, directly colliding with world history.
Seriously, in civ6 rise and fall you cannot be Portuguese and control cities all over Indian Ocean coast. You cannot be Dutch gradually taking over Indonesia. You cannot be East India Company. You cannot be Vikings and create settlements all over Europe, or settle cities deep down Rus. You cannot be Greeks colonizing the entire Mediterranean, or Cholas conquering Malay ports. You can't do those things because of ahistorical loyalty system which would make all such lonely outposts instantly collapse to magical ahistorical force of population magnetism.
My another problem with Loyalty system is shared with ridiculous civ4 culture border wars, thank God at least this absurdity is gone. And what I mean is: the idea that the entire provinces (cultural borders of civ4) or cities (civ6)
could casually peacefully change hands by civic rebellion, without violent supression by military force or diplomatic ****storm. If Roman city on Persian border was in risk of "flipling" to Persian side then Roman military would immediately remind it why that's suicidal idea. And even if Roman area
did succesfully flipped to Persian control (you could maybe simplify Armenian mess with such comparisions) then it could, and was a cause of enormous diplomatic, international mess, usually ending bloody.
But in civ6? Oh yes, I am medieval military empire that mutilates people daily as a regular criminal punishment, yet I simply can't
force my own city to submission, I can only watch how its loyalty meter falls and it
peacefully casually takes somebody elses banner and kicks out my officials and tax collectors. Yeah, it's not like I would
crush such revolt with my army and slaughter those traitors at the slightest sign of betrayal.
Who controls the area in human history is decided by applied force. It doesn't matter if my city is surrounded by much bigger civs territory if I have military power to beat any aspiring "loyalty flipper" among my citizens to a bloody pulp. Succesful revolts do happen, but "loyalty flipping" is simply nonsensical arcadey mechanic.
