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

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.
Well, the point where the two things converge is that it in a lot of cases bolstering pops to do a loyalty to flip is simply an easier way to claim in the late game. I don't think it's simply a dichotomy between cities having inherent defense or not. Their relative strength to the attacker simply needs to be relevant. Again, 117 tank against 98 city, and it can't make a scratch. Maybe free cities might not enjoy the benefits of impregnability, as they are on their own and in a state of chaos. So as they become susceptible to loyalty flips they also become easier to invade. Maybe in 7.
 
I think to sum up this thread, the point is that Loyalty seems to make good situations better and bad situations worse. When you are already ahead it propels you farther ahead, and when you are behind it can make it much more difficult to be successful. That's what I ultimately don't like about it.

Yes, you can make it work for you and there are ways to mitigate its issues, but in the end is boils down to the fact that it generally hurts the disadvantages player and helps the one that is already doing better.

Mechanics that make it harder to climb out of a hole generally aren't fun.
 
I think to sum up this thread, the point is that Loyalty seems to make good situations better and bad situations worse. When you are already ahead it propels you farther ahead, and when you are behind it can make it much more difficult to be successful. That's what I ultimately don't like about it.

Yes, you can make it work for you and there are ways to mitigate its issues, but in the end is boils down to the fact that it generally hurts the disadvantages player and helps the one that is already doing better.

Mechanics that make it harder to climb out of a hole generally aren't fun.

Civ is so full of these. Sucks the fun out of the game for everyone except munchkins
 
Well, the point where the two things converge is that it in a lot of cases bolstering pops to do a loyalty to flip is simply an easier way to claim in the late game. I don't think it's simply a dichotomy between cities having inherent defense or not. Their relative strength to the attacker simply needs to be relevant. Again, 117 tank against 98 city, and it can't make a scratch. Maybe free cities might not enjoy the benefits of impregnability, as they are on their own and in a state of chaos. So as they become susceptible to loyalty flips they also become easier to invade. Maybe in 7.

Stop getting so hung up on walls protecting against cavalry units and throw siege units at them instead. What you're arguing is nothing but a fallacy. Tanks aren't meant to be good at capturing cities, they're meant to be good at moving fast and catching enemy units off-guard.

Seriously, literally just look at the Ukraine war. Do you really think Ukraine would warrant major civilization status if you compare Civilization and the real world? There are several dozen countries with a larger GDP and/or population and/or land area. If anything, you can make a decent argument that they became a free city due to lack of loyalty.

And what happens when Russia sends hundreds of dumb tanks at them rather than using competent strategy? The dumb tanks get obliterated.
 
Civ is so full of these. Sucks the fun out of the game for everyone except munchkins

Every game needs some balance between cleaning up the game faster, vs adding a catch-up mechanism. Especially a game like civ, I think having some features that help you more when you're ahead aren't a big deal. Like, I really don't want a Mario Kart blue shell in a civ game, something that takes the first place person and basically destroys them.

I do think one of the problems with loyalty though is that it also doubly benefits from pushing ahead in how era score gets added. It's still too easy to chain golden ages together once you get ahead, since you get so much score from getting to the next eras first and all that. I think Loyalty would act better as a rubber-band method if they made it virtually impossible to chain golden ages together. Like, say they added a mechanism to the game where no matter what you do, after a golden age, you must fall into a dark age the next era. Suddenly it turns into a system where you use a golden age to pull yourself ahead, but then the next era you really have to fight to keep it. Dramatic Ages sort of starts to go down that path, but also suffers from the problem that if you're not in the lead and go dark, suddenly you lose even more and it pulls you down even further.
 
Like, say they added a mechanism to the game where no matter what you do, after a golden age, you must fall into a dark age the next era.
I’m all for not chaining golden ages, but forcing you into a dark age after a golden age would be a horrible, unfun and to boot not historically accurate mechanism. But like I said, a “cooldown” on when you can hit your next golden age would be fine.

Wrt. the whole catching up thing, I still think a huge part of the problem is the way victory is determined by who reaches a certain goal in the late age rather than a cumulative score over the duration of the game. If rushing through the tech and/or civic tree meant you had to bypass the things that earned you score along the way, it would be less of a problem. But it’s not easy to achieve that, unless we bring back the old slider system where science and culture comes at the cost of gold (and/or production), which I know some fans are rooting for and which may not be a bad idea.
 
Stop getting so hung up on walls protecting against cavalry units and throw siege units at them instead. What you're arguing is nothing but a fallacy. Tanks aren't meant to be good at capturing cities, they're meant to be good at moving fast and catching enemy units off-guard.
Tanks have a well-established history of taking cities swiftly and effectively. The term "blitzkrieg" elicits that imagery.

In game terms, which is more important, Seems like relative strength ought to mean something. A tank has a +20 advantage over the city, shouldn't just ding off.
 
Last edited:
I’m all for not chaining golden ages, but forcing you into a dark age after a golden age would be a horrible, unfun and to boot not historically accurate mechanism. But like I said, a “cooldown” on when you can hit your next golden age would be fine.
Well, they can just move the goal post, make the score requirement for the next GA. Kinda was had the impression it already worked that way as the gap does seem to increase even when I so elegantly stick the landing on hitting the score without going a jot over.
 
Tanks have a well-established history of taking cities swiftly and effectively. The term "blitzkrieg" elicits that imagery.

In game terms, which is more important, Seems like relative strength ought to mean something. A tank has a +20 advantage over the city, shouldn't just ding off.

Tanks > Artillery > Cities > Tanks

It's basic rock paper scissors, essential game design. Different units are good at different things. If you use a hammer, don't be surprised if you can't un-screw a nut, even if it's a 100 dollar hammer while you have a 20 dollar screwdriver.

As for the blitzkrieg, I don't know about other countries, but here in the Netherlands it went as quick as it did because the Netherlands literally had one tank (which got stuck in the mud) and were ill-prepared due to an attempted neutral stance, and even then a large part of the German invasion included paratroopers to bypass defenses and the carpet bombing of Rotterdam to force a quicker surrender.

I imagine there was a similar extreme disparity between Germany and Denmark, or Germany and Belgium, at the very least in terms of numbers and probably also technology. Poland got partitioned between Germany and the Soviet Union, having to fight a two-front war while technologically behind. In addition, apart from Poland, all countries mentioned are small enough that the initial offensive comparable to how the Ukraine war started covered enough ground to push the opposing forces into the sea; Ukraine had the opportunity to pull back thanks to it's size.

And then there's France, the only major country to be invaded by Germany... who lasted over a month before capitulating, with Germany only occupying roughly half the country, and that's after Germany used the invasion of the Benelux countries to bypass their major defenses.

Then there is also the simple point that Blitzkrieg is, according to Wikipedia, a form of combined arms. Tanks, motorized infantry and air support. Not something silly like "just throw tanks at them".

And of course all this is all ignoring the kinda major point that Germany had been growing, training and modernizing it's army for about a decade while everyone ignored it because they were feeling ashamed of the overly harsh Treaty of Versailles. And Germany also straight up had a higher population to draw from than any of the surrounding countries.
 
Tanks have a well-established history of taking cities swiftly and effectively. The term "blitzkrieg" elicits that imagery.

In game terms, which is more important, Seems like relative strength ought to mean something. A tank has a +20 advantage over the city, shouldn't just ding off.
When? As mentioned, while mechanisation was key, there was a lot more to it than just tanks. It required air support and infantry as well. It was only really useful during a narrow period - once the Allies updated their own diatribes and dogmas, it was negated. Every war I can think of used combined arms when using tanks.

As for game mechanics, it's in line with the rest of the game - the rock paper scissors idea that you need a unit to be much, much stronger to defeat a unit that is its weakness. Urban combat is one of the worst places for tank, just like historically it's been for cavalry - which the game treats tanks as (which is both right and wrong simultaneously).
 
Well, they can just move the goal post, make the score requirement for the next GA. Kinda was had the impression it already worked that way as the gap does seem to increase even when I so elegantly stick the landing on hitting the score without going a jot over.

Yeah, it does space them out, and I know there's a mechanism in place so that when it calculates the next target, it adds like +5 or +10 or something for every golden age you've hit to date (along with a modifier based on city count and stuff). And obviously when you're in a golden age, you don't get the "free" era score based on the dedication you pick like if you're in a normal or dark age, so it's harder. But I think in general it's still too easy. Like the extra cost of a golden age can be basically eliminated by wither wiping out an AI, or converting a few cities while at war, or a number of other things. Yeah, I've definitely run into cases where I "wasted" my golden age and struggle on the next one, but it's still the sort of system as a whole where once you're ahead, it's a lot easier to save yourself than when you're behind. I don't know what the true fix it - maybe there just needs to be a few more score mechanisms where you simply don't gain the bonuses from them when in a golden age (like maybe you don't get the +1 per great person while in a golden age), or maybe it just needs to be something like instead of forcing your next target up by 1 per city in a golden age it aggressively pushes it so you need like +5 score per city so that it becomes truly a struggle to hit that next golden age. And yeah, forcing you into a dark age probably would be too much, but if it became truly almost impossible to chain back to back golden ages together, and you ended up more in a golden-normal-golden-normal type cycle more often, at least that would minimize things a little and maybe let someone who went dark->heroic a slightly better chance to catch up.
 
We need a “Why Era Score is implemented horribly” thread otherwise I’m gonna go one for seventeen paragraphs and be horribly off topic

Tanks do not do well in urban combat because they tend to have terrible visibility and situational awareness. This is why tanks without close coordination with well trained infantry die like flies, as Russia is (again) demonstrating in the Ukraine currently. Urban environments make that tough to do. Urban environments tend to turn into rubbled nightmares that make moving vehicles difficult as well

The claim that Blitzkrieg makes taking cities is…absolutly ridiculous is the most polite way I can respond

Blitzkrieg is finding weak spots in the enemy line, assaulting those, encircling your enemy, destroying his logistics, communications and supplies and then forcing the encircled disadvantaged force to attack you to try and break out.

The whole point is AVOIDING enemy strongpoints, then forcing the enemy to either attack you at a disadvantage or surrender.

It’s the exact opposite of assaulting cities. This has been classic German operational method since Frederick the Great
 
Blitzkrieg is finding weak spots in the enemy line, assaulting those, encircling your enemy, destroying his logistics, communications and supplies and then forcing the encircled disadvantaged force to attack you to try and break out.
The whole point is AVOIDING enemy strongpoints, then forcing the enemy to either attack you at a disadvantage or surrender.
Yep. Blitzkrieg is essentially thorough reconnaissance and swift logistics which allows decisive tactical concentrations of power.

Btw, games with long Moves like PanzerGeneral or OldWorld portray the elements you enumerate above much superior (and actually need reconnaissance & replacements).
Even better: the OldWorld AIplayers know the rules and handle them quite competent. ;)

 
When? As mentioned, while mechanisation was key, there was a lot more to it than just tanks. It required air support and infantry as well. It was only really useful during a narrow period - once the Allies updated their own diatribes and dogmas, it was negated. Every war I can think of used combined arms when using tanks.

As for game mechanics, it's in line with the rest of the game - the rock paper scissors idea that you need a unit to be much, much stronger to defeat a unit that is its weakness. Urban combat is one of the worst places for tank, just like historically it's been for cavalry - which the game treats tanks as (which is both right and wrong simultaneously).
Yes, in the real-world combat we wouldn't be in a position where the cav is what's researched and therefore that's what is going to dominate the military till other units catch up. .One of the manifold ways the game is abstracted away from reality. I don't see how that's effectively simulated by having certain cities be impervious to some (most?) forms of attack.

That roshambo element you refer to is accounted for through strength modifiers. The anti-cav gets a bonus against cav, the infantry gets a bonus against the anti-cav. It's not really rock/papers/scissors though--it's not an automatic defeat as in roshambo though. It can be overcome by other modifiers. Indeed, even a clear underdog can win if he can stack the numbers.

:spear:

The thing I keep pointing to (that is being sidestepped by responders) is that the scenario I'm talking about is one where the unit has more than overcome the strength differential, like by +20 and still can't make a dent. Renders Combat Strength moot rather than works with it. . I have 118 Strength and the city has 98, the city should flinch. The numbers ought to mean something.. I don't know why that strikes anybody as a silly thing to take objection to.
 
Last edited:
We need a “Why Era Score is implemented horribly” thread otherwise I’m gonna go one for seventeen paragraphs and be horribly off topic

No one is stopping you from creating it.

Blitzkrieg is finding weak spots in the enemy line, assaulting those, encircling your enemy, destroying his logistics, communications and supplies and then forcing the encircled disadvantaged force to attack you to try and break out.

If I remember correctly from my skim of the Wikipedia article on Blitzkrieg, it also became much less effective after the Allies adapted to it in WWII, implying it was more of a temporary advantage due to a better understanding of modern warfare than anything else.

I don't see how that's effectively simulated by having certain cities be impervious to some (most?) forms of attack.

Have you even been reading what people are saying? Tanks suck at urban warfare. That's just how reality works.

The thing I keep pointing to (that is being sidestepped by responders) is that the scenario I'm talking about is one where the unit has more than overcome the strength differential, like by +20 and still can't make a dent. Renders Combat Strength moot rather than works with it. . I have 118 Strength and the city has 98, the city should flinch. The numbers ought to mean something.. I don't know why that strikes anybody as a silly thing to take objection to.

Oh, but the numbers absolutely do mean something.

A cavalry unit, such as a tank, fighting 1v1 against a city with 20 strength advantage, in particular if that city is under siege, can absolutely win, even if the city has walls. But it seems to me like you simply do not understand how combat works, or at least how walls interact with it.

In Civ 6, combat works with a strength difference. This strength difference is entered into a formula gives an average damage taken and received if combat happens, with if I remember correctly a 20% uncertainty.

Walls have a special interaction with this mechanic. The attacking unit's damage taken is unchanged, but if there is a wall up, the damage dealt to the city and the walls is significantly reduced unless the attacking unit is either a siege unit, or has a modifier allowing them to do full damage to walls or ignore walls. Dealing full damage to walls means the damage to walls is not reduced (this is also what siege units get) while ignoring walls means damage to walls is reduced, but damage to the city is not reduced.

As walls start falling (losing health), the reduction in damage dealt to walls remains the same, but the reduction in damage dealt to the city gets less. Therefore, the more the walls are damaged, the more damage a unit can do to the city.

This means that it is a fundamental mistake to assume flat, unchanging damage numbers when estimating whether or not a unit or group of units can take a city without dying.

And again, if you are limited in time, bring some artillery. They do not have reduced damage to walls, which effectively tends to mean (at this point in the game) that two shots can pretty much tear down the walls completely, allowing your units to simply deal full damage to the city.
 
Seriously, I hate loyalty. What is fun about taking a city and 5-10 turns later it rebels with the MOST ADVANCED UNITS of the time? It's not fun to me. In the early game there's literally no counter. You put a governor in there, select all the policies, nope still rebel.

It's just an awful game mechanic.

Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if rebels didn't spawn units that require iron with no iron in sight. Yet as the player I need Iron to have iron units.

But these rebels are sometimes people that used to be in your army, and others with connections in your army. It makes perfect sense that they would have access to everything you have. I think of it more like a civil war. Or in the case of a conquered city, veterans of the army you beat and with connections for supplies from their old government, who I like to imagine are secretly supplying them if they still exist. Moreover, historically speaking. These kinds of rebellions are usually supplied by other nations that hate you. Such as France providing the weapons for the American revolution.
 
I use a mod called Normal Dramatic Ages, which has the effect that a civ that has a dark age loses a city to rebellion as per dramatic ages, but otherwise you can have a normal age as usual (and golden ages are not changed). This can be very useful when you covet a border city, but you don't want to declare war on your neighbour. If you can get it to rebel, you can attack it without causing any grievances. Sometimes you can even get a chain reaction of rebellion and roll up your neighbour.
 
Top Bottom