Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Amrunril, Jan 23, 2018.
What happens to units in a city when it becomes a free city?
I've had it happen when on the verge of a cultural victory.
Units inside the border get pushed out, unsure about that inside the city. Certainly if I see a city soon flipping I would move out regardless. Random dispersion is unpleasant. i'll have a look around
It's possible units inside are lost, I'd have to rewatch Quill's Monoglia game to get a better look to be sure.
From what I've seen, the loyalty mechanic is plenty strong enough. It's a huge slow down on warmongering, which is what I think Firaxis wanted.
I agree its a slowdown which is wonderful, how much of a slowdown is a good question.
Its also interesting how now when I play I am looking at proximity of cities more and France settled 6 away from my capital just 10 minutes ago which will be rather a foolish move in the future.
This game is looking up!.. apart from the latest I heard in a quil game when India was about to take Amsterdam on 0 health and decided to go for peace instead. Every silver cloud....
Up until the industrial era, the 'loyalty' of cities and territories was determined less by the people and more by the 'elite' who ruled there. Dukes, barons, counts, governors and even generals might decide to break off on their own or ally themselves with someone else. Sometimes, a royal marriage was all it took for a city or territory to suddenly find itself in another sphere of influence.
However, all of the above considerations (and so many more) become rather complex for our game and our purposes. I think this loyalty mechanic is a move in the right direction, though I do believe it is ill-named. The average player will automatically think in esoteric and emotional terms when thinking of loyalty rather than the more pragmatic reasons a city might 'flip'.
If the devs think that's the real issue with late game, the devs will consistently fail to fix the late game.
I actually had it happen in my very first game....don’t recall seeing it much after that. I do agree it seems loyalty is maybe a bit too strong but until I play enough it’ll be hard to gauge.
IMHO it should be the same way as the culture system in 4. It should discourage planting a city in the middle of another civ, but it shouldn't be needlessly punished. Verchojansk doesn't suddenly break free from Russia because there is a thousand miles of tundra between it and Moscow... But for instance Poland did because it got loyalty pressure from the West.
Loyalty do create some natural borders because you wont want to found a city in a -20 or even -10 loyalty place and in turn it encourage early warfare. Even if you can not hold cities you can raze them and settle your own cities.
Yes it do have an impact on the early game but it wont dominate the early game.
So in Quill's Dutch youtube play #7 Dehli flips in 4 turns, it might have actually been 3 turns, I wasn't keeping close track of when he took the city. That's amazingly fast. Granted, this city was deep within the Indian empire, but this is going to be a handful dealing with. Seriously, how can you even do anything about this?
Soon afterwards he conquered several cities and had no serious loyalty issues.
Yup, just got to that part. I wouldn't say no loyalty issues, Dehli still has problems. I think that shows the answer as always is, more warfare. And of course moving in the governors helped too.
Still goes to show there will be at least a little bit of whack-a-mole effect in that he had to retake one flipped city.
Overall I'm happy to finally see a game with a lot of conquest (his Korea game he mostly razed everything). I haven't gotten updated videos from Marbozir's Mongol game yet, only watched 3 of them. I now have a general idea what I need to do to conquer the world... I mean coexist peacefully with my neighbors.
Newly revolted cities do not have walls, taking them back shall be quite easy in one turn or two. So their flip only gives you a chance to loot its improvements and get bonus yields.(and of course, bring workers with you army so that you can fix these improvements once you re-capture the city)
In the 8th play through it seems like it is almost impossible to not see those captured Indian city flip due to low loyalty even if he tries to move governors in them as fast as possible. So... loyalty may change warfare somewhat. Perhaps more racing necessary.
They spawn a couple of units as well so if nothing else its going to wear your knights down more and slow up the game a little. Its certainly interesting and it seems like its a waste to retake until you can remove the capitals influence.
I would repair the improvements before it flipped back. A couple of workers and you can play repair, flip , loot, capture all day long
Could be a good source of xp for units. You could farm a cruddy little 1 pop city.
aaah yes... but @Lily_Lancer only cares about speed so was replying in lily language.
A friend of my sons in Civ 5 always used a city state for XP building. It sort of worked and I guess you can do the same in 6, just declare war in ancient times and never take the city so no warmonger points and it pleases Alex and Gorgo.
Far distance or other continent based cities should always be in questionable loyalty unless the player allocates resources, picks supporting civics, assigns governors or other measures to prevent revolt.
And revolts should wildfire to nearby cities. Most units flip. Rest teleported to capital.
Or the rhyes version "your cities want to flip/defect, action?"
Measures could include trade routs could spread loyalty, harbour and aerodrome could help against isolation, local garrison.
Separate names with a comma.