I found an eleanor exploit.

RoboEmperor

Warlord
Joined
Aug 16, 2018
Messages
108
I was doing a 4 city science rush thing. Chose eleanor because I thought she'd be better than Korea. If you cluster all 4 campuses around a government plaza and surround them with districts you can get the +4 adjacency, and since eleanor has +4 research lab which doubles to +8 due to rationalism, i figured in the long run eleanor would beat seonduk especially since eleanor has guaranteed coal mines and 1 coal mine can power all 4 research labs AND food markets so she has a much easier time than seonduk in getting research labs and 15 pops up.

Anyways because of amenities reasons, I've been ditching every city that changed its loyalty to me. But it turned out it was several cities turning over to me every 3 turns, and every time they turn I get +2 era, +3 with Taj Mahal. And before I knew it, I got 3 golden ages in a row, all the way to future.

I ditched the cities by selling it back to the AI. Some cities they only pay 1 gold, but some cities they pay through the nose. +30 gold per turn. So every 3 turns I get another +30 gold per turn per city that turns. I was swimming in so much money I had nothing to spend it on.

So yeah, infinite era points and gold by using her leader ability. Probably worthless in multiplayer because other players aren't gonna buy back their own cities every 3 turns.

Hope this doesn't get patched. Nobody plays eleanor. And patches brutally murder everything. That rationalism nerf really hurt me.
 

Victoria

Regina
Supporter
Joined
Apr 11, 2011
Messages
11,883
It’s on the border, flipping and selling when you can end up with more gold than you can eat but equally, it is her ability. The main issue I have with the whole thing is selling a city within the loyalty system, you cannot sell it unless it is fully loyal to you, but then who would buy a city that is loyal and would flip? This is poor mechanics/design caused by shoehorning different new mechanics into a game
 
Joined
Aug 3, 2020
Messages
416
The whole loyalty system needs a revamp in my opinion. I'm always a fan of mechanics that emulate the real world, but in this case the loyalty system is somewhat counter intuitive. If cold war germany for example was in the civ 6 universe, you'd see popular demand for the exclave West Berlin to become a part of East Germany. The reality was quite the opposite though.

Game play wise as well, loyalty in it's current form also contributes to screwing over AI conquests, who seems incapable of dealing with it.
 

Thormodr

Servant of Civ
Supporter
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
5,000
Location
Vancouver, Canada
I really like the idea of loyalty. It punishes forward settling which I hated in previous iterations. (Except when I was doing it. Yes, I'm a hypocrite to the AI. ;))

Could it be tweaked to make it better? I'm sure it could. But please, please, please keep it in the game. I don't want to see forward settling in Civ VII. :D
 

kaspergm

Deity
Joined
Aug 19, 2012
Messages
5,456
The whole loyalty system needs a revamp in my opinion. I'm always a fan of mechanics that emulate the real world, but in this case the loyalty system is somewhat counter intuitive. If cold war germany for example was in the civ 6 universe, you'd see popular demand for the exclave West Berlin to become a part of East Germany.
Maybe they had a cultural alliance? :mischief:

I do think the loyalty system overall works fairly well in the game context, although as OP highlights, there should probably be a rule that when you trade a city away, you no longer have an influence pull on it, similar to how it works when you reject a city flipping to you. As for the current system, sure there are numbers that could be tuned, and yes AI fails miserably at it, but in terms of limiting conquest, I do think conquest being too hard is not an issue the game has, quite the contrary.
 

RoboEmperor

Warlord
Joined
Aug 16, 2018
Messages
108
I built my theatre squares pretty late so it didn't turn any "forward settling" cities. It turned established cities with wonders or luxury resources. They were the ones the AI paid through the nose to get. The newly settled cities they only gave me 1 gold.
 
Last edited:

UWHabs

Deity
Joined
Oct 10, 2008
Messages
4,910
Location
Toronto
Maybe they had a cultural alliance? :mischief:

I do think the loyalty system overall works fairly well in the game context, although as OP highlights, there should probably be a rule that when you trade a city away, you no longer have an influence pull on it, similar to how it works when you reject a city flipping to you. As for the current system, sure there are numbers that could be tuned, and yes AI fails miserably at it, but in terms of limiting conquest, I do think conquest being too hard is not an issue the game has, quite the contrary.

Yeah, overall Loyalty does a good job at avoiding a lot of cases, and the worst of the forward settling. It's a pain at times, for sure, and there are still a few exploits dealing with repeatedly flipping that would have been nice to patch up. One I know I abused at times was a case of a civ with one city and not nearly enough loyalty to keep it. So basically the city would flip free, then you can go in and liberate it (or pillage+liberate to abuse it more), get a pile of diplo favor, but now the original owner doesn't have enough loyalty to keep it, so 5-10 turns later it flips back, only to repeat the cycle.
 

RoboEmperor

Warlord
Joined
Aug 16, 2018
Messages
108
It’s on the border, flipping and selling when you can end up with more gold than you can eat but equally, it is her ability. The main issue I have with the whole thing is selling a city within the loyalty system, you cannot sell it unless it is fully loyal to you, but then who would buy a city that is loyal and would flip? This is poor mechanics/design caused by shoehorning different new mechanics into a game

I did notice that loyalty does affect price. If I sell a city to a far way civ its usually low, some even 1 gold, but if I sell the very same city to a civ with many cities near it, I actually get like 24 gold per turn for it. So loyalty does affect price.
 

TheMarshmallowBear

Benelovent Chieftain of the Ursu Kingdom
Joined
Dec 27, 2006
Messages
7,763
Location
Inside a Ziggurat
The whole loyalty system needs a revamp in my opinion. I'm always a fan of mechanics that emulate the real world, but in this case the loyalty system is somewhat counter intuitive. If cold war germany for example was in the civ 6 universe, you'd see popular demand for the exclave West Berlin to become a part of East Germany. The reality was quite the opposite though.

Game play wise as well, loyalty in it's current form also contributes to screwing over AI conquests, who seems incapable of dealing with it.

The thing with Loyalty was it never replaced Culture Flips. I think if they incorporated a vs. from the Culture of the city in question vs. the loyalty from nearby cities, it would be better (especially if scaled properly), in fact, with reduced loyalty, the actual culture would be affected, causing it to flip faster depending on how much culture it loses.
 

Yzman

Deity
Joined
Jul 18, 2002
Messages
2,776
Location
Illinois, USA
I dislike how loyalty is currently implemented. I think if a city is occupied, it shouldn't flip due to loyalty, at least not at easy as they do now.

If I take over a small border city, with overwhelming force, how can it flip in like 3 turns? What is flipping it?

Large cities should be more likely to be able to flip, but as of right now, it seems to be the opposite. I know it is to stop rapid conquering, but something seems terribly wrong with how it works.
 
Top Bottom