[GS] I hate loyalty more than any other mechanic.

[Leyrann]

I will point out that you can actually do this successfully, though. Requires taking a few cities near each other in rapid succession, but that's nothing a rolling war machine can't do once you've neutralized enemy units in vicinity and busted walls. In later eras where roads give more movement and you can policy/general even foot infantry up to move speed of 5 in addition to said roads, it's not even particularly onerous to take 3 cities in 3 turns, such that 1st city is now being loyalty pressured by...your other now-captured cities.

Another way to hold cities that would otherwise be hard is via triggering emergency.

That's true, I've actually done conquering in Dark Ages myself at times. It's not something I'm going to recommend to players who are already struggling with loyalty though.

(and in all honesty, the most notable example in my recent memory had me take certain cities like five or six times as they kept flipping independent, then I got into a heroic age and suddenly things got far easier)

 

[Oberinspektor Derrick]

A good way to do domination in a dark age is also to just let the "worst" cities (loyalty wise) flip independent, while you focus the high population centres nearby.
Then mop up the rebels afterwards.
Often you get a lot of work done not necessarily by having that extra city, but denying that extra city from the defender.

 

[steveg700]

Definitely ways to dominate in a dark age. And indeed, perhaps even a need to do it to prevent loyalty flips. A little selective razing here and there.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

A good way to do domination in a dark age is also to just let the "worst" cities (loyalty wise) flip independent, while you focus the high population centres nearby.
Then mop up the rebels afterwards.
Often you get a lot of work done not necessarily by having that extra city, but denying that extra city from the defender.

I think this depends a lot on exact layout of cities/opponents. If the city would be lost to culture pressure, there's a case to be made for not capturing it yet and leaving it in AI hands. Unless they have a ranged unit in there, this can easily be less costly than letting it flip and having the revolt generate a couple units. Depends how likely it is to repair walls or do other annoying things, how long you'd need to leave it etc. But at least a chunk of the time, it's fine to just take those at approximately same time as other nearby cities and get a loyalty generation triangle or w/e.

 

[Archon_Wing]

It just requires you to settle cities in the region before invading. Past the early game you have ECs so if you get one up in a nearby city, or target an enemy city with one, it's easy. It doesn't even scale with production so even a city with 1 production can keep the project going as long as you can rush it out.

There's also nothing wrong with burning cities if you're just aiming to hurt them and don't have the army for a real invasion.

I usually find loyalty problems as the result of poor planning. The classical scenario is if the enemy attacks you and you defend. Having the righteous fury of a counterattack, you easily grab a border city or two but can't hold it so the game's broken. But it's mostly a player generated issue unless it's an amphibious invasion. However, you should still know beforehand that such an invasion should require overwhelming force.

Add to the fact that pillaging probably would give you more instant yields than taking some crappy cities would for many turns and you might be forced to think "wow, maybe I should just consider something else besides 'take city'"

I mean yes the loyalty system could use more refining and it's incredibly boring. Governors are also kinda shallow but it also saved the game for me. Vanilla was such a facerollfest where you didn't even care about cities you captured, merely that you had them.

I would never play any civ game without this mechanic in some shape or form.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I think loyalty mechanics, things like the big diplomatic hit you get if you take another civ’s cities regardless of who started the war, and how rewarding pillaging is was perhaps Fireaxis’s attempt at changing the usual Civ paradigm of the ever expanding blob problem.

You win a war, take some cities, and this starts a feedback loop because doing so makes you stronger and the other civ(s) weaker, which lets you take more cities, making you even stronger. Rinse repeat and you own the globe

Loyalty issues makes holding those cities expensive, and if you lose them bam suddenly your enemy gets a free army. If you pillage instead you can get crazy yields, then make peace

If you beat up an opposing civ and impose a peace you usually get some sort of tribute, often resources and luxuries and an open borders agreement allowing your troops to move freely through their turf. This is basically making them your vassal in everything but name, and part of your empire.

If they rebuild enough they may feel strong enough to cancel those agreements and tell you to sod off. This is basically a subject people rebelling against their overlords.

Where this falls apart is that it’s too easy to avoid loyalty problems once you understand how this system works, and the game gives you too many tools to amelorate it like govenors

I’d like to see a system where you cannot own enemy cities once you make peace with that civ. You can beat up a civ, make it give you all its gold and resources and have free transit rights for your units, but you can’t blob it.

 

[oSiyeza]

Bigest problem with loyality, to me:

- Is is pretty much the only way the AI takes cities, and also makes AI wars mostly pointless, since they are unable to hold any city they may take. In other words, is a mechanic (as many others) designed just for the human player. As a mechanic, it creates artifically some dynamism on the AI civs, and makes the game unplayable for them, maybe as an alternative to make them competent at war. Which to me makes the game boring for any player playing against the AI.

- The fact that no matter how much army you have u cannot prevent a city from rebellion, and the unit spam of free cities even without the resources to make them is ridiculous. Probably you don't remember it, but in Civilization I loyality was managed by happiness, and you could prevent a city from rebellion, by lowering taxes (remember when you could just adjust the % of the taxes you would impose on the population, and that taxes played a role on how much research you would do and how happy your citizens would be and how much army you could sustain?) and other stuff that affected hapiness like having certain buildings, or having a big enough military force on the city (with a big enough army you could prevent a city to revolt), and as a last resource by disabling the population and letting it starve. It was a complex system wich required you to manage the population of any conquered city as the population would be unhappy about it. In a much natural, flexible (and better) way than flipping cards an gobernors. And yes it was the first civ game, 30 years ago.

- Is too restrictive in the most boring way possible. Colonies were a thing in real world because the Civ mechanic resembles little to nothing how culture, or loyality or anything works. Managing and empire has nothing to do in Civ VI with making good policy, military, or economic decissions, or even good diplomacy or science. It is all about using the right game rules and cards to get the better game numbers.

I know mechanics are abstractions of real life concepts. But in Civ VI mechanics are not abstractions of aspects of managing a Civilization, or empire building. Mechanics in Civ VI are videogame abstractions, of a cardgame abstraction, of a board game abstraction of a concept, represented as a linear formula. And any resemblance of the original concept is buried on layers of abstraction, and tuned to be a balanced number for a multiplayer card game, instead of to provide any meaningful or fun experience in a civilization management game.

I have seen 30 years of Civ games. And as much as we have gone forward. I think in many ways this game, with all the improvements in graphics, sound, AI, accesibility, hardware, ... of 30 years of technology and experience making civ games with added and improved mechanics. Civ VI does the very basic thing is supposed to do (being a game about creating and managing your own civilization). Far worse than the very first attempt of doing it.

This is not the only mechanic and feature that is in my opinion is worse or is still missing from the original after 30 years. Starting from the intro of the creation of the earth, to the timelapse fast replay of the entire history of your game at the end. And includding things such as some diplomatic and spy options, the Palace and Space Station building views, meaningful worders, citizen management, having an AI that was able to play the game...

One thing I remember distintively, is how you could see the rise and fall of civilizations in the fast replay. Reflecting massive struggling power shiftings and wars. If we did that on a Civ game today, we would see the civilizations expanding to fill the entire map, maybe one civ fall at the beginning and then just a static world with nothing happeneing but an ocassional city flipping, or taken every couple hundred of years, most of the times just to inmediately flip back. And maybe some mixup, if the world gets flooded, as not a single civ will build barriers. You will see the world changing after early game if the human player does it or as the game forces changes on the AI civs with game rules, almost never caused by the AI, never following any identifiable plan.

Im not saying this game is worse than Civilization I. It is of course much better in all technical aspects, and some changes and additions along the years have added a lot. What Civ VI is not, however is a better game about managing a Civilization, or even a better 4X strategy game, than Civilization I.

 

[rgp151]

Yes, well its ironic that with all of the advances in AI, AI as gotten worse in many 4X games. The central core of the game has become an afterthought. This is why I, and I think many people, still play many DOS 4X games. They are actually superior in many (of the most important) ways. The situation is actually much like the music industry. I think in the 80s many people were making video games for the love of it and to try to create real actual challenges and puzzles. Now its become a business. People don't make music that is nearly as complex as the music from the 60s and 70s anymore, or at least such music is not heard on the radio or sold in any meaningful quantity the way it was then. Same goes with essentially all forms of media.

 

[oSiyeza]

Yes, well its ironic that with all of the advances in AI, AI as gotten worse in many 4X games. The central core of the game has become an afterthought. This is why I, and I think many people, still play many DOS 4X games. They are actually superior in many (of the most important) ways. The situation is actually much like the music industry. I think in the 80s many people were making video games for the love of it and to try to create real actual challenges and puzzles. Now its become a business. People don't make music that is nearly as complex as the music from the 60s and 70s anymore, or at least such music is not heard on the radio or sold in any meaningful quantity the way it was then. Same goes with essentially all forms of media.

There is still music as good and complex as in he 60s, 70s, and 80s. And videogames made with the same passion too. But you will not find them in the AAA industry, or in the comercial radio.

The talent and passion and love for the media is still there. It just happens that a lot of it has been consumed by the industry. Its called capitalism.

I many ways however, u are right.

 

[reddishrecue]

Civilization 5 had some really good music and so did civilization 6. In civ 6 there are very good themes that are from the past like the American theme, hard times shall come again no more.

 

[oSiyeza]

Civilization 5 had some really good music and so did civilization 6. In civ 6 there are very good themes that are from the past like the American theme, hard times shall come again no more.

A terrible thought just crossed my mind. Can you imagine, if civ VII just had contemporary mainstream music?

I mean, the day they put an Eurovision kind of soundtrack, with a modern pop and trap aproach to folk national motives (in the best case), mostly written by comitee, it would be my time to play on mute, or ust to sign off.

 

[Leyrann]

Yes, well its ironic that with all of the advances in AI, AI as gotten worse in many 4X games. The central core of the game has become an afterthought. This is why I, and I think many people, still play many DOS 4X games. They are actually superior in many (of the most important) ways.

I don't agree. I played some Civ 2 two years ago or something, now with significant experience in 4, 5 and 6, and while I was greatly enjoying my nostalgia trip, it was also blindingly obvious to me how incredibly linear the game was in many aspects. Every city was effectively the same, and the optimal way to play was to just spam more and more cities until you had dozens of them. It took me barely half a game to realize that the replay value was close to zero for me.

The situation is actually much like the music industry. I think in the 80s many people were making video games for the love of it and to try to create real actual challenges and puzzles. Now its become a business. People don't make music that is nearly as complex as the music from the 60s and 70s anymore, or at least such music is not heard on the radio or sold in any meaningful quantity the way it was then. Same goes with essentially all forms of media.

And as pointed out by other people already, this isn't true either. The vast majority of the music I listen has been released in the last 20 years, and it's all more complex and - in my opinion - more beautiful than it was in the 70s; and I'm saying that as someone who also enjoys bands like Pink Floyd and Queen a lot. The only part where you are correct is that you won't be hearing it on the radio.

The equivalent of which, I suppose, is to point out that you simply have to look at non-AAA games. Are you familiar with the Age of Wonders series, for example? They are an absolutely magnificent series of fantasy-themed 4X games (with the latest release being a sci-fi themed spinoff instead) that is going strong to this day, with Age of Wonders III being released in 2013 and the sci-fi spinoff called Age of Wonders: Planetfall being released in 2018 or something.

(I somehow forgot I was working on this post and it's been sitting here for a few hours, I'm pretty sure I said everything I want to say though so I guess I'll just post it and hope everything makes sense)

 

[steveg700]

Yes, well its ironic that with all of the advances in AI, AI as gotten worse in many 4X games. The central core of the game has become an afterthought. This is why I, and I think many people, still play many DOS 4X games. They are actually superior in many (of the most important) ways. The situation is actually much like the music industry. I think in the 80s many people were making video games for the love of it and to try to create real actual challenges and puzzles. Now its become a business. People don't make music that is nearly as complex as the music from the 60s and 70s anymore, or at least such music is not heard on the radio or sold in any meaningful quantity the way it was then. Same goes with essentially all forms of media.

Certainly. By the end of the 1980's, the the record companies had pretty much brought up all the radio stations. DJ's became obsolete. Programming became an incestuous affair. Both punk rock and glam rock proved in their own ways that instrumental technique and tonality were not vital ingredients to mainstream success. Most people simply don't want to buy something complex that they can savor in a windowless room. They want something that they can their toe to in traffic or jam to at a social setting.

Rap or hip-hop or whatever eclipsed rock in the glamor category, and mainstream rock got jammed into a niche largely stopped trying to serve up guitar gods. We got bands that wail away, the Rise Againsters and the Five-Finger Punchers and the Panic at the Discos (they're punk- influenced, don'tcha see). We got the Imagine Dragon bands that seem to make songs more for licensing to movie trailers and commercials. And metal went a similar way, from the ear-piercing falsettos to the lower-barrier-to-entry cookie-monster growls.

Have course there's always Sweden. The realms of power metal (and the endless parade of adjectives that get jammed in front of "metal" now). However, that kind of heavy orchestra-pit approach to takes the notion of complexity in a different than the soulful sound 1970's offered with progressive bands like Zeppelin, Floyd, Bowie, etc. So yes, it is fair to have a sense that something precious has been discarded.

Bigest problem with loyality, to me:

- Is is pretty much the only way the AI takes cities, and also makes AI wars mostly pointless, since they are unable to hold any city they may take. In other words, is a mechanic (as many others) designed just for the human player. As a mechanic, it creates artifically some dynamism on the AI civs, and makes the game unplayable for them, maybe as an alternative to make them competent at war. Which to me makes the game boring for any player playing against the AI.

What's really insanse is that in the later game, and army of mechanized infantry or modern will plink harmlessly off of a city, even one with 15 less strength. Some insane decision is at play here that cities should be essentially invulnerable to direct attack. It can only be worn down with indirect attacks from bombers or rocket artillery so that the aforementioned troops can walk into it defenseless.

Some bizarre, half-conceived mindset at work there , and I can only imagine the consternation who don't come to Civfanatics to have it explained that there is some massive-yet-hidden strength modiifier thwarting them. Meanwhile, the Zulu will absorb this city without having to raise a finger.

 

[Leyrann]

Have course there's always Sweden. The realms of power metal (and the endless parade of adjectives that get jammed in front of "metal" now). However, that kind of heavy orchestra-pit approach to takes the notion of complexity in a different than the soulful sound 1970's offered with progressive bands like Zeppelin, Floyd, Bowie, etc. So yes, it is fair to have a sense that something precious has been discarded.

I don't think it's fair to treat metal like that. There are many fundamentally different genres in metal, and if anything power metal is one of the most unusual ones in the metal scene, for all that it's my favorite. But what (almost?) all metal genres have in common is that they are most certainly complex and made with passion for good music, rather than passion for money.

Also, Finland has more metal bands than Sweden.

And of course, there are also bands such as Muse, which may have some metal influences but is first and foremost rock. You just need to know where to look. I'm sure there are many bands out there that make music in the style that was popular in the 70s, they just aren't as popular so you have to search for a little. I'm afraid I can't help you with that, however, as I prefer metal myself.

What's really insanse is that in the later game, and army of mechanized infantry or modern will plink harmlessly off of a city, even one with 15 less strength. Some insane decision is at play here that cities should be essentially invulnerable to direct attack. It can only be worn down with indirect attacks from bombers or rocket artillery so that the aforementioned troops can walk into it defenseless.

Some bizarre, half-conceived mindset at work there , and I can only imagine the consternation who don't come to Civfanatics to have it explained that there is some massive-yet-hidden strength modiifier thwarting them. Meanwhile, the Zulu will absorb this city without having to raise a finger.

Uh, that massive-and-fully-visible strength modifier is called urban defenses, is unlocked at Steel, and functions like a fourth level of walls. And it's quite realistic that you need to shell a city with artillery first before sending your troops in. Imagine sending your troops into a fully functioning city, they'd get slaughtered in every street.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Large urban centres are a nightmare to storm militarily.

Extensive firepower is needed, which brings with it it’s own set of problems as the rubble can offer somewhat randomized cover and concealment, and makes movement tough

City strikes are dumb though

 

[reddishrecue]

Large urban centres are a nightmare to storm militarily.

Extensive firepower is needed, which brings with it it’s own set of problems as the rubble can offer somewhat randomized cover and concealment, and makes movement tough

City strikes are dumb though

There should be advances in firepower as well. Like the air balloon, or the drone which increase siege firepower range by 1 for example. You could just sit there and siege your way in and you have to make the defenses for weapons. Another advance is flight and the bombers if you have oil or aluminum where you can bombard that way as well. There's also medical supply trucks that help heal your gunpowder/mobile units that are in enemy lands taking fire. That's why science is so important so that you can have whatever it is you need to do whatever it is you like (i.e siege, build loyalty, defense, etc.).

 

[steveg700]

Large urban centres are a nightmare to storm militarily.

Extensive firepower is needed, which brings with it it’s own set of problems as the rubble can offer somewhat randomized cover and concealment, and makes movement tough

Well, a city itself has no force field to repel tanks or missile turrets popping out of the fire hydrants to destroy them. I've already destroyed all the military attempting to protect the city. It's only a free city, after all. It's all rife with abstraction, and realism should not really be conjured up as a reason why tanks and infantry inflict negligible damage. But okay, in terms of realism, what is represented by this defensive abstraction that renders a city impregnable? We're not talking about resistance here, we're talking about not being able to make a dent...with a 117 to 98 advantage.

At any rate, that is all rather tangential to the real point. There's one means of taking a free city, where even with an army artillery, it is still a slow chip-away process, and then there's the loyalty flip, which will happen in fewer turns with no expense of effort. There's some incongruity.

 

[Chekko]

I think it should have more to it, to maybe have Population be more categorized. For example when you go to invade somebody and capture a city (which is surrounded by other cities of the same Civ) that city is screwed unless you really invest on loyalty (buy a monument with gold, have the +5 Loyalty for garrisoned units card up and set up a governor there). When you capture cities you should have an option to get rid off the population so that your population who are loyal to you lives there instead. So you have some stored loyalty at least

 

[Leyrann]

Well, a city itself has no force field to repel tanks or missile turrets popping out of the fire hydrants to destroy them. I've already destroyed all the military attempting to protect the city. It's only a free city, after all. It's all rife with abstraction, and realism should not really be conjured up as a reason why tanks and infantry inflict negligible damage. But okay, in terms of realism, what is represented by this defensive abstraction that renders a city impregnable? We're not talking about resistance here, we're talking about not being able to make a dent...with a 117 to 98 advantage.

At any rate, that is all rather tangential to the real point. There's one means of taking a free city, where even with an army artillery, it is still a slow chip-away process, and then there's the loyalty flip, which will happen in fewer turns with no expense of effort. There's some incongruity.

First of all, yes there is still military attempting to protect the city. As you pointed out, there is a ton of abstraction; in this case, the abstraction is that the city's garrison is not a unit on the map, but the city's defense strength. Heck, you can even see the units in the animation when they do a city strike.

As for "slow chip-away process" with an artillery army, that's just plain false. An artillery army with the right boosts (great general, fascism, etc) will 3-shot or even 2-shot a city. Not just the walls, also the city itself. In other words, bring two or three artillery armies and you get it to zero health in a single turn, and your tank can just drive in and take it.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Well, a city itself has no force field to repel tanks or missile turrets popping out of the fire hydrants to destroy them. I've already destroyed all the military attempting to protect the city. It's only a free city, after all. It's all rife with abstraction, and realism should not really be conjured up as a reason why tanks and infantry inflict negligible damage. But okay, in terms of realism, what is represented by this defensive abstraction that renders a city impregnable? We're not talking about resistance here, we're talking about not being able to make a dent...with a 117 to 98 advantage.

At any rate, that is all rather tangential to the real point. There's one means of taking a free city, where even with an army artillery, it is still a slow chip-away process, and then there's the loyalty flip, which will happen in fewer turns with no expense of effort. There's some incongruity.

The loyalty mechanic being broken is a seperate issue from cities being historically a nightmare to assault

This is seperate again from whether cities should have an inherent garrison or whether like previous titles you should have to assign a unit there.