Rebellion/Loyalty is broken. Completely broken.

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Yeah, I've definitely had cases in a war where I take one city, and then see that it's like 4 turns to flip, and I go "oh crap, I guess I better take the city next to it ASAP".

The game should probably increase the impact of having multiple military units around the city when calculating loyalty over newly conquered cities. But then, so much of the Loyalty system is a blunt population weighing mechanic right now that there's a lot of more nuanced impacts I'd like to see added to make it richer.

 

[MisterBoomBoom]

The culture of your nearby cities isn't relevant to the Loyalty calculation, only the amount of population they have. Some cities are just unholdable if taken in isolation. If the pull of nearby foreign cities is too strong, you may need to take those other cities as well, at least until the loyalty of the city you want to take stabilizes, then you could return the cities you don't want in the peace treaty.

Other than my closeby city- the others (3) are crap (Ie no luxuries or population to speak of - as they are recovering from wars themselves.) I thought that the culture you have in a city influences the connected cities-- thus the arrows of influence? Only Population? I have a pop10 city next door with a wonder etc... I'm not sure how else I can get ahead in them as my one roll of the dice so to speak (chopping for pop etc) ended and there is no other remedy.

 

[Archon_Wing]

I think they could also buff the military/governor loyalty cards. They're pretty weak atm and don't actually help when they are needed.

 

[AlannaT]

I think they could also buff the military/governor loyalty cards. They're pretty weak atm and don't actually help when they are needed.

There might be some logic behind those numbers. I added all the positive loyalty modifiers together yesterday and if I didn't forget something it sums up to +20 (without Bread & Circus) which is exactly the cap for negative population pressure:

• +8 from governor
  
• +2 additional from governor with policy
• +2 from garrison with policy
  
• +6 from ecstatic happiness
• +2 from own promoted Amani nearby

It might just be circumstance but it fitted nicely.

It suggests to me that there should be very few cases where holding a city is virtually impossible if you are willing to invest.Those modifiers are independent of age since age just affects population pressure which is capped at -20. The modifier most difficult to control / achieve is +6 for ecstatic. But even if you are not able to get the whole +20, with +17 (all of the above but only happy instead of ecstatic) you have at least 16 rounds until rebellion for a captured city (starts with half loyalty) exposed to maximum negative population pressure. +12 (no happiness, no Amani) still gives you 6 rounds. With 6 to 20 rounds time it should often be possible to change circumstances to your favor by repairing / buying monument, adding population, capturing additional cities to reduce population pressure etc. It comes of course at a cost because you have to invest two policy slots for the time being and if you want the +2 from Amani you have to invest 1 governor promotion and have to place her within 9(?) tiles.

It further suggests that capturing cities while your empire is only content or even unhappy is most likely as bad an idea as doing it in a dark age.

 

[Casualty of war]

I love flipping cities with Loyalty pressure. I also enjoy capturing cities, letting them flip to Free and then the regional civ gets to deal with the grumpy neighbor.

The advantages of a sprawling empire is that you have to devote resources towards keeping it part of the empire. History has a million examples of distant lands splintering off from the capitol from some perceived slight. It can be a little frustrating, and just last game I had a border city that was going to cost more to keep than it provided; I traded it off for a bunch of gold and some Great Works because the writing was on the wall.

 

[MisterBoomBoom]

• +6 from ecstatic happiness
• +2 from own promoted Amani nearby

• 
  Ecstatic happiness? After a battle to take a city- difficult to do when the population is at one and resources scorched.

• 
  Amani promotion might be unavailable (esp early) and there having adjacent governors don't seem to help unless you have this one promo available and the ability to place it.

• 
  I thumbs up the buffing of the current card.

 

[juanpavo]

One problem with buffing the current card is that if it becomes a "loyalty guaranteed" card, then that removes the fun of the game. It is more fun when loyalty is at risk because it poses problems that need to be solved in others ways.

I may be in favor of adding an additional loyalty card so that if you really want more loyalty, you would have to sacrifice another card slot. Then it becomes an interesting and difficult choice.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

One problem with buffing the current card is that if it becomes a "loyalty guaranteed" card, then that removes the fun of the game. It is more fun when loyalty is at risk because it poses problems that need to be solved in others ways.

I may be in favor of adding an additional loyalty card so that if you really want more loyalty, you would have to sacrifice another card slot. Then it becomes an interesting and difficult choice.

This captures much of my feeling about Loyalty concerns.

If you can establish Loyalty over any city, then there's no point to even having the Loyalty system.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Spending a whole card just for loyalty is a huge deal especially before a t2 government. You'll either cripple your production or economy by doing that. And would you keep it over the long term? The pressure problem is still there

If you already have extra pressure sources from yourself and just happened to be on the edge of it so you can keep 1 or 2 cities, AND can justify using a slot for that, AND have stuff like ecastic/Amani then you probably also are probably at a huge advantage and would win anyways in which case, your cards don't matter anyways and pick one that helps you do it faster.

And that's ultimately the answer to the thread.. Target their largest cities and take out the pressure as quickly as you can. If it didn't work, then the war was poorly planned and you lost the moment it started. It's no longer a matter of what to do now, because it's too late for that.

 

[CPWimmer]

... If it didn't work, then the war was poorly planned and you lost the moment it started. It's no longer a matter of what to do now, because it's too late for that.

And that to me means that the system is working. It may not be working the way people want. It may not even be working the way the developers fully intended. However, this new system is something that actually requires strategic planning in order to deal with and interact with. And although it could use some tweaks here and there, the system is most certainly not "Completely Broken".

 

[blackbutterfly]

The major issue is there is little or no way for tall empires to compete with wide ones when it comes to loyalty.

 

[Archon_Wing]

And that to me means that the system is working. It may not be working the way people want. It may not even be working the way the developers fully intended. However, this new system is something that actually requires strategic planning in order to deal with and interact with. And although it could use some tweaks here and there, the system is most certainly not "Completely Broken".

Yea, it's not too hard to solve but I guess some map specific situations can be problematic.

The major issue is there is little or no way for tall empires to compete with wide ones when it comes to loyalty.

How so? Taller empires have larger populations focused in an area and are harder to flip, and are more likely to flip smaller cities.

 

[blackbutterfly]

How so? Taller empires have larger populations focused in an area and are harder to flip, and are more likely to flip smaller cities.

Tall = Small.

Only really Kongo, Indonesia, India and perhaps The Cree can really go "tall", cos they have housing UI. All the other civs are practically capped until they can build neighbourhoods or Democracy.

So wide cities tend to be more populous.

 

[MisterBoomBoom]

One problem with buffing the current card is that if it becomes a "loyalty guaranteed" card, then that removes the fun of the game. It is more fun when loyalty is at risk because it poses problems that need to be solved in others ways.

I may be in favor of adding an additional loyalty card so that if you really want more loyalty, you would have to sacrifice another card slot. Then it becomes an interesting and difficult choice.

No, I disagree that it becomes a guarantee- Even the slightest buff would simply allow a player MORE TIME to get the city right...Most of these cities revolt and continue to revolt every 5 turns once the initial turn happens. Likewise, it gives opponents time to also adjust and send govs their way as well. But as it stands now it pays to RAZE cities rather than appropriately tend to the needs to get them to stay within your grasp. It just takes more time, especially after a first attempt fails.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Tall = Small.

That 's just underexpanding and not really a style.

When I think of tall, I'm thinking about early pop 15 with about 5-6 cities with some wonders, and lots of farms infrastructure and probably some food/jungle gathering to boost the population looking at endgame of 25-30 pop cities.

I'm not sure how you can call an empire tall when there's nothing tall about it to begin with.

 

[blackbutterfly]

When I think of tall, I'm thinking about early pop 15 with about 5-6 cities with some wonders, and lots of farms infrastructure and probably some food/jungle gathering to boost the population looking at endgame of 25-30 pop cities.

I think it would be nice if wonders contributed more to loyalty, not just the Colosseum and the Statue of Liberty.

Although France has been buffed considerably IMO the chateau should also be given +1 loyalty if on home continent to help it go tall.

Scotland seems very resilient to loyalty pressure cos of its focus on amenities maybe? It seems to be the only real "tall" empire catered to counter loyalty. Or maybe b'cos of its TSL?

(My experience is mostly based off playing TSL maps and I love playing against Europe cos it's a nice easy fast game even on Deity. I just watch European powers flip and fall to loyalty and I go in and conquer a few and liberate a few while colonising the rest of the planet)

 

[liv]

The religion adding even more loyalty to make up is a bit annoying.
So for warmongering probably easier just to skip founding a religion

 

[Victoria]

There might be some logic behind those numbers. I added all the positive loyalty modifiers together yesterday and if I didn't forget something it sums up to +20 (without Bread & Circus) which is exactly the cap for negative population pressure: ......It might just be circumstance but it fitted nicely.

Well they do need balance which is why there is some fit there but having your deck full of loyalty cards is a big disadvantage and assuming you have promoted Amani (I never find the time and she is always at some CS getting me better value) you also need to assume the AI has at least one promoted amani in the area and often there is more than 1.

So for warmongering probably easier just to skip founding a religion

Even when playing religion I will skip founding one until quite late. I just avoid at other times... most are pretty useless.