deleted

[RoboEmperor]

deleted

 

[Oberinspektor Derrick]

Not sure this qualifies as an exploit.

 

[Victoria]

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

 

[Oberinspektor Derrick]

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]

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.

 

[kaspergm]

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?

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]

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.

 

[Victoria]

Yes as 4 cities they would have had big pops, that’s a lotta pressure

 

[UWHabs]

Maybe they had a cultural alliance?

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.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

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]

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.

 

[Kotofei]

Not sure this qualifies as an exploit.

Yeah, if I'm playing Eleanor I'd rather have the city than the gold.