I'm Starting to Really hate Loyalty

Your 'every now and then' (under normal cirucmstances ) is so rare most people can't remember it ever happening to them.
That's purely argumentative and snarky to boot. I daresay you can neither speak to rarity or what most have experienced in an authoritative fashion.

I've indulged your skepticism by outlining the issues that can lead to an admittedly infrequent scenario, multiple times now. It is not rare to be crowded in by civ's with more units. To continue calling that artificial or inconceivable without any actual response to that scenario other than repeating "nah, never happened" degenerates discussion into bickering.
 
Last edited:
There is a tactic demonstrated by Potato McWhiskey for guaranteeing getting a religion, which involves spamming holy site prayers as quickly as possible. You get your religion, but probably a dark age as well.

By the way, has anyone actually used any of the dark age cards?
 
By the way, has anyone actually used any of the dark age cards?
I sometimes use the one which I think is called something with isolation ... where you can't train settlers, but your trade routes get +2 food and +2 production. But most of the time I don't use any of them.
 
Twilight Valor +5 melee but can't heal is pretty solid if you need that extra push to win a war.
 
I sometimes use the one which I think is called something with isolation ... where you can't train settlers, but your trade routes get +2 food and +2 production. But most of the time I don't use any of them.
Isolationism actually..
I use it rather frequently this patch... Helps with building early wonders such as pyras or oracle in a newly settled city with that early settler from pantheon. Problem is ironically I find myself struggling to get a dark classical age sometimes (civs keep sending their scouts and meeting me!)
 
Isolationism actually..
I use it rather frequently this patch... Helps with building early wonders such as pyras or oracle in a newly settled city with that early settler from pantheon. Problem is ironically I find myself struggling to get a dark classical age sometimes (civs keep sending their scouts and meeting me!)

I often wish for a classical dark age, but hardly ever get one... Well, to be precise, what I aim is the medieval heroic age (you know, when I DO have harbours and commercial hub to really use it, and several distric to produce culture, and enough gold to enjoy the sales on workers :rolleyes:). I even delay the construction of some districts by a few turn if it can help me.
 
Definitely fine. If anything, it's too mild like many things in this game.
for the fanatics, who play daily or close this could be the case but for 80% of the players it is hard enough.. and as ong as they are buying it we get new great civ ititrations. maybe solution is an extra difficoulty level above deity
 
From the very first post:
Having said all that, yes dark ages should be rare and are usually the result of cheaping out on exploration....
And the next reply:
As I've already noted, my peevish friend, it should be an infrequent development....
And the next one:
Usually, you can score the needed points all the same because you'll run into enough +1's, but as has been said a couple times now....
It's been said in many posts in many ways, but if it's finally been processed, then at last indeed.
 
Last edited:
It's useless because all your cities that you conquer rebel.
So go right for the capital first, or bring in more troops and stage the attack in such a way that you take several cities at once... Or don't go to war while in Dark. It is not that you absolutely must, isn't it? Wait for Heroic.
I certainly don't want to go back to vanilla situations where AI would send its second settler across half the continent and plop down a city four tiles away from my capital in a conversational manner, ignoring all that space it has much closer.
 
It's useless because all your cities that you conquer rebel.
It's not useless, but it is rather bad. I've used it once where it really gave me the edge against Rome's wellfortified cities. His empire was long and narrow, like a moon crescent on the site of my empire, so I could sort of pluck it from the end without suffering too much loyalty pressure.

But I agree, it's extremely marginal and not something you will often get a use from.
 
Managing loyalty is the only time I ever feel like I'm actually managing an empire. Since Civ 6 happiness, corruption, etc. aren't really things, it's pretty much just loyalty.

Yeah, as much as I hate having to deal with it, I at least have to deal with it.

Like, forever in the civ franchise, people always complain. "Oh, it's just a war simulator" "War is too easy" "It shouldn't always be the case that you just conquer your neighbours"

Then suddenly they put a mechanism in place that makes war a little tougher, and make you have to actively manage things, and people get annoyed? To me, loyalty is basically the best thing that's come to war since the civ 4 maintenance system, where if you conquered a neighbour too fast you ran the risk of bankrupcy.
 
So go right for the capital first, or bring in more troops and stage the attack in such a way that you take several cities at once... Or don't go to war while in Dark. It is not that you absolutely must, isn't it? Wait for Heroic.
I certainly don't want to go back to vanilla situations where AI would send its second settler across half the continent and plop down a city four tiles away from my capital in a conversational manner, ignoring all that space it has much closer.

Exactly. And you only have a post-settle option to request they not do this again (which now requires a player to have diplomatic favor which they often don't have yet). So, to war we go to capture a city that is probably not ideally placed and needs to be razed. What a waste. Loyalty is a great thing, if not perfect.

A player takes a ham-handed approach to doing something, a mechanism thwarts it, the players calls it a bad mechanism.

How about instead of declaring it pointless and impugning the mechanism, try devising an actual strategy?

This is how we got a Civ game where happiness is relatively meaningless and therefore nothing really keeps city spam in check. If an AI is spamming settlers, so must I follow lest they eat up the map. All because players want to sprawl and think having to execute a planned expansion is an atrocity.

Yeah, as much as I hate having to deal with it, I at least have to deal with it.

Like, forever in the civ franchise, people always complain. "Oh, it's just a war simulator" "War is too easy" "It shouldn't always be the case that you just conquer your neighbours"

Then suddenly they put a mechanism in place that makes war a little tougher, and make you have to actively manage things, and people get annoyed? To me, loyalty is basically the best thing that's come to war since the civ 4 maintenance system, where if you conquered a neighbour too fast you ran the risk of bankrupcy.

Yes, and like I already mentioned, loyalty is often pretty easy to deal with, thanks to governors and garrisons. Just don't do it to someone in a better age than me.
 
Last edited:
What an absolutely terrible idea, which would run completely counter to the purpose of loyalty. If anything, loyalty needs to be expanded to work on individual tiles and borders.

Quoting this because firaxis needs to see this.
 
If you're in a Dark Age in the first place it means you CAN'T get the military to conquer faster.
 
If you're in a Dark Age in the first place it means you CAN'T get the military to conquer faster.
That’s only true if your cities are already in poor loyalty placement and fall below thresholds that affect your production.
 
If you're in a Dark Age in the first place it means you CAN'T get the military to conquer faster.

Dark ages don't hurt military production?

And what happened to the army you were building in ancient? I don't really get it. Regardless of era,you're not making war unless you had an army ready.

It's kinda implied that a +5 combat bonus would help you conquer faster.
 
Top Bottom