Loyalty makes it impossible to invade other continents.

[HiRezAudio]

Are you managing grievances by declaring joint wars and/or wars with a causus belli? Grievances directly affect captured city loyalty. Also, never raze cities. The grievances generated will just make it even harder to hold onto different ones from the same owner.

I don't find that grievances make any difference when razing cities, as the AI will always hate you anyway because if you respond to an aggressive AI constantly attacking you (that's you, Rome) by wiping them out after repeated attempts to co-exist are trampled all over then it makes no difference whatsoever if you take/raze or even leave them a city. They surrender, and 20 turns later they are off again yet it is always, just always, me that gets the 'warmonger' penalties.

What we really need is a better system for this, such as including either 'unconditional surrender' or enforced vassalage (vassal state should also be an option in diplomatic negotiations too). I do get bored with having to constantly fend off aggressive civs and suffer endless 'grievances' against me when I did not start the bloody war in the first place.

As for invading another continent, I find the best way is to save up a couple of Governor titles and amass an armada & a land army & just go for it.

 

[Abaxial]

What about the AI? Has anyone seen an AI civ successfully invade another continent? (Other than to attack a CS).

 

[Golkian]

I always play deity, standard speed

if you look at @JessesS post, you will find the most important trick: Just take those three cities, fulfil most of the following criteria:
* form a triangle
* not be more the 7-8 tiles away from each other
* not differ from the sizes of the other cities around
* be conquerable in a way, that you can conquer the second city less than 7 turns after the first, then another 10 turns for the third

If you can start to take the largest city (population) first, you might get around with only placing a governor in the first city and having to play any loyalty cards. Loyalty is largely based on how much enemy population a city has around it. If you have more population around one of your cities than your enemy has and if you all are in the same age type (dark, normal, golden), you can manage loyalty with just a governor.

Of course, if you are in a dark age, have an extremely unhappy empire, and have founded a religion while the cities you take follow another religion, it is possible that you simply cannot take those cities, even if you would take three cities fulfilling these criteria in the same turn.

To win the Domination Victory in complicated conditions you need to understand the loyalty metagame. In most cases the above criteria should do it.

 

[Zenstrive]

Bring a lot of settlers, siege ships, and bomber airplanes if you want to invade civs on other continents. Raze the beach cities and cities one layer deeper. Build new cities, install your governors on that city. If you have believe in your religion that automatically convert your new cities to your religion it would be better.

bombers really help you mow down the opposing forces. After two or three cities, usually you won't get any meaningful oppositions from loyalties

 

[The Civs 6]

Am I the only one that feels like its sort of its intended effect? It's less of a stop sign and more of a speedbump for military expansion and it seriously curbs forward settlement.

 

[Vargas1]

Am I the only one that feels like its sort of its intended effect? It's less of a stop sign and more of a speedbump for military expansion and it seriously curbs forward settlement.

I think it is working as intended; the problem (for me) is that the way it's designed is too all-or-nothing. I rarely see a situation where there is a true borderline city when it comes to loyalty - either there's full loyalty (or will be in a small number of turns), or a city that's going to rebel in 10 turns. I wish there were more ways to have slight adjustments over time - like pillaged improvements are -1 loyalty, having each occupying troop somewhere in the city give +1 loyalty, etc. - so that there was more of a push and pull with loyalty issues. It would be cool to have the civ who just lost a city trying to push out attackers or burn the city as they leave in order to try to flip it back, while the attacking force could try to do something other than just stick a governor in and move quickly to the next city.

 

[Golkian]

Two weeks ago I razed the first city in Civ 6 ever. Even though the cities settled by the AI are usually in less than good spots, razing a city and settling a new city in the same area is usually pointless after turn 100 in my games. The new city simply does not have enough time to regrow to a significant size to be of relevance. [Edit: When I get bombers, the game should be over in not more than 25 turns on deity, 35 if I was behind and made mistakes. So no time for regrowing a new city. ]

Instead, I keep the city and let it contribute to my empire with the little bit of science, culture, gold and faith it might generate. And most of the times even that is a lot more than a newly settled city in a nearby, maybe better location might be able to generate until the end of the game, given that it has to regrow first. Even with the golden age dedication, which gives size 3 cities on different continents (Hic Sunt Dracones), is usually worse than Reform the Coinage, which prevents my trade routes from being plundered.

There are just two cases I would consider razing a city:
* I need a canal city nearby, which the city to raze is blocking
* I have amenity problems. But it might even be possible that razing cities causes more unrest due to more grievances...

 

[King Rad]

I think it is working as intended; the problem (for me) is that the way it's designed is too all-or-nothing. I rarely see a situation where there is a true borderline city when it comes to loyalty - either there's full loyalty (or will be in a small number of turns), or a city that's going to rebel in 10 turns. I wish there were more ways to have slight adjustments over time - like pillaged improvements are -1 loyalty, having each occupying troop somewhere in the city give +1 loyalty, etc. - so that there was more of a push and pull with loyalty issues. It would be cool to have the civ who just lost a city trying to push out attackers or burn the city as they leave in order to try to flip it back, while the attacking force could try to do something other than just stick a governor in and move quickly to the next city.

I also believe it's working as intended. However, I haven't noticed the 'all or nothing' situation with regard to loyalty. True, the cities are usually 100% loyal [since that's the way cities start anyway], but it may be that they're only generating a few loyalty points per turn. I always look at the loyalty of several cities in an area if I'm planning on trying to conquer them. While I don't play a domination game, I will try to take a free city to give me a stronghold on another continent. Or sometimes, try to take an entire group of free cities to do this. In my current game, there were about 4-5 free cities comprised of what used to be Georgia and one or two from Macedonia. Using some of the tactics discussed above, plus looking at the loyalty being generated in each city, I took the lowest one first and another shortly thereafter, established in the highest loyalty city and another governor in the first one captured. That along with the various loyalty cards [governor, garrisoned unit, and the plus 3 for cities on another continent], i generated enough loyalty to put the first two into positive loyalty [also in golden age] and then each additional one became loyal immediately upon conquering them. By the last one [which was coastal - had to do all this over land since just beginning to get navy up and running], it was losing loyalty to me even before I conquered it. Also, i used Mulan [think that's the one] whose impact on walls is like having artillery, to capture as quickly as possible, since all the free cities had walls.

 

[HiRezAudio]

I also have no issues with the loyalty system, as before this was introduced it made a continental invasion far, far too easy against a weaker opponent when the reality is that not only should supply lines be harder to maintain, but the guerrilla tactics of a technically weaker nation as well as the natural hatred towards the invader should all conspire to make this a difficult idea to pull off.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Just throwing out some ideas here, but I was thinking that a preliminary attack on one city, just to reduce Loyalty pressure on the city that's your real target, might be a useful strategy. You might not even care whether you keep the first city; it might be a secondary objective, in the grand scheme. For a real-world example, I'm thinking about the Allied invasion of Italy in 1943, 10 months before D-Day. If you're attacking an entrenched enemy, you don't just storm the gates right from the beginning. That's what they want you to do.

p.s. One grievance I have with the Civ VI UI is that it only shows Loyalty Pressure on unclaimed hexes, for the purpose of deciding where to found a new city. Being able to see Loyalty Pressure on occupied hexes and established cities would be invaluable for planning an attack. If there's a check-box somewhere that does this, I haven't found it yet. There are a lot of check-boxes.

 

[Abaxial]

One thing that helps is to capture a port city on another continent with a naval melee unit, and the faith-purchase a mass of units in that city, and you can overwhelm cities nearby in short order.

 

[Bibor]

Yet another mechanic that was not really thought out. it works in peacetime, kind of.
Captured cities should be immune to rebellion for 10 turns minus the number of pillaged tiles worked by it, or some similar flavor.

 

[Future Tech]

Yet another mechanic that was not really thought out. it works in peacetime, kind of.
Captured cities should be immune to rebellion for 10 turns minus the number of pillaged tiles worked by it, or some similar flavor.

Yes, totally agree. Also, maybe apply the same number of turns to city and encampment attacks from the newly captured city.

 

[ehecatzin]

this is why I'd love it if garrisoned forts provide loyalty to frontier cities...heck it could be yet one more of Victor's unlocks.

 

[Future Tech]

Currently forts are pretty useless, so yes, makes sense to boost forts like that. I'm surprised that none of the multiple fort-related mods affect loyalty, but maybe shouldn't be hard to mod that in.

 

[megabearsfan]

Loyalty pressure is generated largely by population. Invading another continent requires having multiple cities with decent-sized populations reinforcing each other's loyalty. If you conquer multiple cities close together simultaneously or in quick succession, it should be easier to hold them.

Depending on the map circumstances, you can also settle cities on nearby islands or on parts of the continent that the other civs haven't settled yet, in preparation for invading those civs. These cities will then provide a loyalty buffer for your conquests further into the continent. Again, you'll want multiple cities settled simultaneously or in quick succession, and you'll want to get their populations up as quickly as possible, in order to prevent them from going independent.

Use policies such as Colonial Offices to boost your loyalty and populations quickly. Use domestic trade routes with large food incomes to quickly raise the populations of the cities. Slot a governor and a military unit in the city and have Limitanei and Praetorium policies (or later-game equivalent) to further buff loyalty. You should also save up a large sum of gold prior to conquering or settling the new cities on the new continent. Spend that money to buy a Monument and Granary in each city. Put Reyna governor with the Contractor promotion in one of the cities and buy an Entertainment complex or Water Park as soon as you can, then run Bread and Circuses.

Being in a Golden Age definitely helps. Having the Hic Sunt Draconis dedication bonus will start newly-settled cities on other continents with extra population and loyalty. You probably shouldn't bother trying to invade another continent if you're in a dark age, as the loyalty penalty will probably flip your cities within just a few turns.

If you're able to quickly capture a few additional cities, you can raze cities along the border with your newly-conquered cities in order to reduce the loyalty pressure that the opponent is exerting on your conquered cities.
I've never tried this, so I don't know for sure if it will work, but if you don't want to raze the cities (because they have valuable wonders, districts, or whatever) you can maybe try gifting them to a friendly or neutral third-party civ. If you gift them to a civ that is in a Dark Age, they might go independent within just a few turns, at which point they'll stop exerting loyalty against your cities, and you can re-capture them on a later turn with no additional grievances. Capturing a single city multiple times, however, will reduce its population each time it's captured, lowering how much loyalty it will give you, and (obviously) reducing its productivity, when you finally do get around to annexing it.

 

[Taefin]

What about the AI? Has anyone seen an AI civ successfully invade another continent? (Other than to attack a CS).

I’ve seen it in ~50% of the AI only matches I’ve been running, though with various parameter changes.

At around turn 280/250 on an AI only match with aggression turned up the larger empire on one continent picked off a 30 pop island city and then 1-2 coastal cities off the weaker empire of another contingents, from across a large ocean.

AI more often jumps over 3-4 tiles of coast to attack neighbors on other land masses, though it seems to often rely on a few naval melee being able to break through city defenses, which requires weakening walls to AI attacks. This is usually GA Civ attacking a DA Civ, and geography helps if it leaves a city off a peninsula.

I’ve also seen AI throw a giant army against a coastline guarded by field cannons and be obliterated as they struggle to move on to land tiles in any coordinated fashion. So AI might need to take the coastal cities using naval units to have any chance of success.

 

[acluewithout]

For what it’s worth, I think the issue isn’t that invading another continent is too hard. Instead, the problem is that you don’t get much benefit for all the effort at that point in the game. Having (conquered) Cities on other continents needs to be more valuable. At the point in the game that you’re doing it, it probably needs to be more than just moar yieldz. But whatever.

It’s also a pity the options are so binary - capture / raise or stay home. If you could “vassal” foreign cities or make them a “colonial” city or something. Nit sure it’s needed in terms of balance or anything. But in terms of feel, just adding more and more cities to your empire mostly gets pretty tedious at some point.

 

[EgonSpengler]

For what it’s worth, I think the issue isn’t that invading another continent is too hard.

Agreed. If anything, it's not difficult enough. On the timescale of Civ, I can't think of a single global power that ruled an area far from their home nation for a long time. The colonial era of European powers lasted a handful of turns in humanity's game of Civ. Portugal, England, Spain, France, and the Netherlands all achieved strong footholds on foreign shores, and all of them collapsed within a few hundred years. Invading a foreign continent should be almost [fracking] impossible.

Instead, the problem is that you don’t get much benefit for all the effort at that point in the game. Having (conquered) Cities on other continents needs to be more valuable. At the point in the game that you’re doing it, it probably needs to be more than just moar yieldz. But whatever.

Agreed. All of those nations whose intercontinental empires collapsed within a few hundred years accumulated nearly incalculable wealth for their efforts, and spread their languages, religions and cultures to the far corners of the globe, where they dominate to this day. Colonization only "failed" if you judge the effort and cost by whether or not those empires retained those cities. Invading a foreign continent should be almost [fracking] impossible, but it should be so mouth-wateringly rewarding that it should be worth trying anyway.

 

[HiRezAudio]

Currently forts are pretty useless, so yes, makes sense to boost forts like that. I'm surprised that none of the multiple fort-related mods affect loyalty, but maybe shouldn't be hard to mod that in.

I agree with this - after all, the whole point of building Forts (in Roman times) and Castles (Mediaeval & onwards) was to make a statement along the lines of 'we are here to stay, so watch yourselves or else...'

I'm also a big fan of vassal states/cities/whole civs making a comeback too.
Far far too many times have I had s### from the angry boys (Rome, this means YOU) yet it is always, always me who gets the hate from the other civs when I eventually have to step on their faces - hard - and it then takes 2/3 eras to recover from all the grievances I get from defending against their aggression as it is often no use letting them peace out as all they ever do is rearm & come back for more. Obliteration is currently about the only option, so if vassalage and/or unconditional surrender was a thing this could be avoided, I could avoid murdering them (and not get the stupid grievances associated with this act) and they could survive but be effectively neutralized.