[R&F] Is Rise and Fall worth it?

[manu-fan]

Hi,

I'm a Prince player who loves getting Domination victories in vanilla Civ 6. Is Rise and Fall worth getting for me? Or does it nerf that type of play? I'd hate to buy it and then find that expanding to 7 or 8 cities and then going after my nearest adversary worn't work any more.

Thanks.

 

[BenitoChavez]

R&F is definitely worth it, in my opinion. Warmongering is nerfed a bit due to the loyalty mechanic but it isn't a huge obstacle and can be overcome with proper strategy (wait...this a strategy game??).

 

[Karpius]

I'd hate to buy it and then find that expanding to 7 or 8 cities and then going after my nearest adversary worn't work any more.

Depends on how far away your nearest adversary is and whether or not you plan on keeping the cities. Loyalty works against keeping a city that is far from your own borders and close to another civ. In my mind, thats as it should be, but some don't care for it.

 

[MaryKB]

I am not a domination player, I have always had a distaste for that victory (I find it too messy), so I cannot specifically comment on that aspect.

I had a difficult time getting adjusted to Civilization 6 originally (I preferred Civilization 5 for some time), but now with the expansion I have fully converted. I do find that the new mechanics make the game far more enjoyable to play.

On Prince difficulty, it should not be terribly difficult to play any style that you would like. The main thing I have felt changed with the expansion is that there are some peripheries to think about, such as the impact of Loyalty and Golden Ages, in addition to the straight basic plan. I felt the game needed the additional depth.

 

[Leyrann]

Yes.

 

[liv]

I am war mongerer. The loyalty mechanism is a bit of a hindrance and sometimes nuisance. but nothing game breaking. You just need to have slightly more military when attacking and plan to attack several cities at once
There are good things for warmongerers in RF. A building that gives production for conquering. You can use faith more. And when you conquer you always get a lot of faith
The civs do not build that many encampments anymore so that makes it easier.
And there are some great warmongering civs in the RF package such as the Mongols, Chandra and the Zulus.
and some good warmongering policy cards

 

[Karpius]

Certainly says something about a game that can please warmongers and peaceniks alike!

 

[Duuk]

Loyalty makes warmongering fun, because you have to be able to move faster than the loyalty penalties pile up. If you can conquer fast enough you can actually trigger the loyalty revolts to stop by removing loyalty pressure from other civs.

 

[Leyrann]

Loyalty makes warmongering fun, because you have to be able to move faster than the loyalty penalties pile up. If you can conquer fast enough you can actually trigger the loyalty revolts to stop by removing loyalty pressure from other civs.

Impi swarms man. It's amazing.

 

[thecrazyscot]

Loyalty makes warmongering fun, because you have to be able to move faster than the loyalty penalties pile up. If you can conquer fast enough you can actually trigger the loyalty revolts to stop by removing loyalty pressure from other civs.

I played a game where Scythia backstabbed me (!!!), so in vengeance I decided I wanted to "liberate" all of her cities. So I would capture one city, wait for it to become a free city, then quickly capture the next closest one, let it rebel, and so on and so forth until I had made my way through most of her civilization. I made the mistake of capturing her last two cities at the same time which made their loyalty self-sustaining, but for a while I had cultivated almost an entire nation's worth of free cities. After I messed up at the end I reconquered the capital and resurrected Tomyris as I felt the lesson had been thorough enough.

 

[Duuk]

I played a game where Scythia backstabbed me (!!!), so in vengeance I decided I wanted to "liberate" all of her cities. So I would capture one city, wait for it to become a free city, then quickly capture the next closest one, let it rebel, and so on and so forth until I had made my way through most of her civilization. I made the mistake of capturing her last two cities at the same time which made their loyalty self-sustaining, but for a while I had cultivated almost an entire nation's worth of free cities. After I messed up at the end I reconquered the capital and resurrected Tomyris as I felt the lesson had been thorough enough.

That's.... that's just evil.

 

[Stevanovic]

I’ve played ~200 hours of R&F and won culture, domination and science victories on king difficulty.

Some of the new civs are nice. Some new stuff like eras, loyalty and governors gets a bit tedious at times. For example regularly having to promote governors and finding you’ve used up the few useful promotions and everything else that’s left is pretty useless. Magnus is so overpowered compared to the rest he is the no-brainer first governor for almost every game and you spend the rest of the game shuffling him from city to city before chopping. The rest of the governors are marginally useful.

Loyalty changes how you play a domination game, now you need to roll up a civ pretty quickly to avoid rebellions. Forward settling can be problematic for the same reason

R&F is relatively cheap so it’s worth getting for the extra civs and you can always do what I do and disable R&F when you need a break from governors, golden ages and loyalty for a while. The downside is that disabling R&F and switching to vanilla disables the new civs.

There are a few annoying bugs like the new civ (Georgia?) who keeps telling me I’m going bankrupt even when I’m earning 500 gold per turn or Alexander who still keeps telling me I’m a coward for not fighting wars when I’ve conquered most of the known world and he only has a handful of cities he settled and hasn’t conquered anything.

 

[Leyrann]

There are a few annoying bugs like the new civ (Georgia?) who keeps telling me I’m going bankrupt even when I’m earning 500 gold per turn or Alexander who still keeps telling me I’m a coward for not fighting wars when I’ve conquered most of the known world and he only has a handful of cities he settled and hasn’t conquered anything.

1. That's the money grubber agenda, not Georgia's agenda, and it means you're earning less than the median. I doubt you were earning 500 gold per turn when you were being told that, by the way. Typically when you're at 30-50 gold per turn that agenda flips to positive, and that's on Immortal, not King.
2. Alexander likes you whenever you're at war with anyone and dislikes you when you're not. It doesn't matter whether or not you conquered cities in the past. It only matters whether you're fighting right now.

 

[Stevanovic]

1. That's the money grubber agenda, not Georgia's agenda, and it means you're earning less than the median. I doubt you were earning 500 gold per turn when you were being told that, by the way. Typically when you're at 30-50 gold per turn that agenda flips to positive, and that's on Immortal, not King.
2. Alexander likes you whenever you're at war with anyone and dislikes you when you're not. It doesn't matter whether or not you conquered cities in the past. It only matters whether you're fighting right now.

Whatever the flawed coding is that initiates those messages both are ludicrous.

I had a large amount of gold was generating excellent income and was clearly not going bankrupt and the civ that spammed me had bugger all gold and bugger all income.

Similarly I had a huge empire, had spent most of the game at war, while Alexander was a total failure at both war and empire building.

Just as ridiculous are those stupid demands we get from massively crippled civs for huge amounts of gold and amenities with the hopelessly empty threat to “get them by other means” when we refuse.

 

[Joch]

yes

 

[Hep Roc Heretic]

There is a lot to like about RnF, and all for the price of a case of decent beer. Enjoy responsibly!

 

[Leyrann]

Whatever the flawed coding is that initiates those messages both are ludicrous.

I had a large amount of gold was generating excellent income and was clearly not going bankrupt and the civ that spammed me had bugger all gold and bugger all income.

Similarly I had a huge empire, had spent most of the game at war, while Alexander was a total failure at both war and empire building.

Just as ridiculous are those stupid demands we get from massively crippled civs for huge amounts of gold and amenities with the hopelessly empty threat to “get them by other means” when we refuse.

I was just explaining how the agendas worked. No need to get all riled up.

 

[Archon_Wing]

If you already like Civ 6, you should definitely buy it, though it doesn't hurt to wait for a sale which is common.

Domination play is still the strongest, but other styles of play can be better due to the power of governors and sometimes loyalty.

 

[Esperr]

Ehhh.

The only thing that feels like it has a major impact on gameplay is Magnus. Loyalty feels like mostly a non mechanic, and all the era stuff starts getting spam clicked away after a few games.

Is it worth it? I don't know. I don't regret buying it, but it feels more like a big DLC then an expansion.

 

[acluewithout]

I can't quite bring myself to buy it for now. Mac still doesn't have all the updates, and it looks like there will be a few more rounds of patches anyway - the last patch made quite a few balance and gameplay changes aside from 'bug fixes' etc. And I'm still very salty about England.

I'm not sure my reluctance is really rational. I really liked Vanilla and, from what others are saying, it looks like R&F has only improved the game. So, buying R&F should be a no-brainer. But I can't quite get motivated enough to get into such a complex game when the mechanics feel like they're in a real state of flux and or still need lots of polish, particularly when my go to Civ has just been killed.