[R&F] Rise and Fall encourages Wars

[Kyro]

Curious though, where does it state that eliminated players no longer affect loyalty of cities?

 

[Archon_Wing]

More reward to capturing cities?

:S Yea I know it's not done yet, but that's just something that I don't want to see.

 

[Candido Rondon]

If you look at the stream, it seems that loyalty act like another version of religious pressure.

Yes, that was the impression I got, which is unfortunate because it will definitely encourage complete conquests rather than limited wars in a game that already strongly favors conquest.

 

[Duckfromstatefarm]

Honestly I always play my civs aggressively, I usually try to go for Domination or Science victory almost all the time, but if Conquesting Cities gives me golden age points, I'll be happy to do it.

 

[Sascha77]

but if Conquesting Cities gives me golden age points, I'll be happy to do it.

If that's the case, I sure hope that you'll get more GA-points through peaceful means (unlocking civics/tech, building wonders/districts, etc). Maybe it's just me, but as the OP implied, Civ VI doesn't need another reason for players to go aggro for much of the game.

Probably a matter of taste, but unless I play one of the obvious warmonger-choices, domination victories feel kinda hollow to me. Especially in VI where the AI seems even less of a challenge militarily than in IV and V.

S.

 

[indradiva]

the devs didn't say in the livestream how conquered cities and loyalty work, but it is logical to assume that they created special rules for them, like having a loyalty penalty in a newly conquered city, because I cannot imagine people would be happy from being conquered. We'll have to wait until we know more, hopefully in the Dutch livestream they'll tell us more about loyalty, since Wilhelmina's ability is focused on it.

 

[ChocolateShake]

It would be great if conquered civs could still exert loyalty, imagine you run into an amenities shortage and suddenly some of your newly conquered cities reverted back to their original civ! They said they wanted more late-game action, that would be a pretty good way to go about it. Kind of similar to the Civ 2 civil wars.

About the expansion encouraging wars, hopefully loyalty will keep it in check. A return of the civil war mechanic would also help with this

 

[Disgustipated]

I actually enjoy my total peace games (not one offensive DOW and no conquering of cities or city-states). I find I make a ton more money with a totally peaceful game than I do with an early war game. I'm absolutely rolling in cash (gold) right now in my Aztec game. Though it helps I have a ton of luxuries and no happiness problems. Which leads to a gripe of mine. Even though my warmongering penalties decline to zero in past games, the AI seems to know that I conquered cities in the past, and doesn't like me as much as a result. Which results in less trades and less money. When I expand peacefully the AI is much nicer to me, and less wars declared on me. Of course I'm playing one difficulty level lower than usual because it can be difficult to compete without taking cities.

I'm not sure how I will play in Rise and Fall. Probably some early war games, some all peace games, and some total war games as I do now.

 

[Kyro]

It would be great if conquered civs could still exert loyalty, imagine you run into an amenities shortage and suddenly some of your newly conquered cities reverted back to their original civ! They said they wanted more late-game action, that would be a pretty good way to go about it. Kind of similar to the Civ 2 civil wars.

About the expansion encouraging wars, hopefully loyalty will keep it in check. A return of the civil war mechanic would also help with this

I was under the impression that loyalty should have the strongest effect on conquered cities as those should be very likely to revolt.

I don't know how others got the idea that conquering someone to the point of elimination would suddenly make their citizens loyal to you like any other. Shouldn't their hatred be at the highest then?

I don't remember seeing anywhere that eliminating a player automatically makes their citizens loyal to you. That would be absurd.

 

[Lily_Lancer]

I don't remember seeing anywhere that eliminating a player automatically makes their citizens loyal to you. That would be absurd.

In Civ4 this is the thing, if you eliminate a civ all its original cities become loyal to you and will not revolt back anymore. (If you don't eliminate it the cities will revolt with a 10%/turn prob unless you put a full stack of army in it.)

 

[Kyro]

In Civ4 this is the thing, if you eliminate a civ all its original cities become loyal to you and will not revolt back anymore. (If you don't eliminate it the cities will revolt with a 10%/turn prob unless you put a full stack of army in it.)

Well that's plain dumb. If they do it in Civ 6 then loyalty just lost the most significant difference it could have made in strategy.

If it is so easily eilminated by players doing what they're already doing then it's a completely useless mechanic.

I'm pretty sure the designers envisioned loyalty as a check against unbridled warmongering/expansion and that means it is likely eliminating a civilization will only amplify loyalty issues and lead to revolts.

 

[Arent11]

Well that's plain dumb. If they do it in Civ 6 then loyalty just lost the most significant difference it could have made in strategy.

If it is so easily eilminated by players doing what they're already doing then it's a completely useless mechanic.

I'm pretty sure the designers envisioned loyalty as a check against unbridled warmongering/expansion and that means it is likely eliminating a civilization will only amplify loyalty issues and lead to revolts.

Well, they said somewhere that every unit of population gives you so and so many points of loyalty per turn. Now, the question is, do population units "remember" their civ/nationality? Or does a city, once conquered, immediately exert loyalty pressure in your favor(?) That would indeed be weird, since you just subjugated them.

 

[Victoria]

Now, the question is, do population units "remember" their civ/nationality?

Perhaps the most sensible is to have loyalty treated like religion. I suspect it will be and even may piggy back off the mechanics. The distance thing is 10 tiles like religion but someone mentioned this strength differing with tile range.
What would be an interesting thing is if foreign loyalty increased population growth also. People flocking to be in your wonderful empire but still having their own cultural bond with their homeland.

 

[bbbt]

Isn't there increased war weariness is 'captured' cities when you are fighting their original founder? Or is it just captured cities get more war weariness in war in general?

I would expect some loyalty penalties - i.e. citizens generate no or negative loyalty in unceded cities, maybe more if you are at war with their original owner.

Perhaps even insta negatives ala losing a religious battle (i.e. take a city -50 loyalty in all of that civs cities you own in a radius, etc.)

I'm not sure cities would be 'flipping' back to the original owner as much as declaring their own independence if they don't like you enough, and then it would turn into a free for all with other AIs trying to come in and nab those cities.

I wonder if you'll have the option to just 'liberate' a city to a free city state on capture? That would be interesting. Of course if you could then just capture it for less warmongering penalty, that wouldn't work.

 

[Victoria]

Isn't there increased war weariness is 'captured' cities when you are fighting their original founder?

Captured cities get the WW before homeland cities do.

 

[Arent11]

Perhaps the most sensible is to have loyalty treated like religion. I suspect it will be and even may piggy back off the mechanics. The distance thing is 10 tiles like religion but someone mentioned this strength differing with tile range.
What would be an interesting thing is if foreign loyalty increased population growth also. People flocking to be in your wonderful empire but still having their own cultural bond with their homeland.

That would be interesting & I would like it, because that is simply how societies work. However, it would automatically go into the "ethnic conflicts" direction, make razing of cities advantageous etc. I'm not entirely sure the designers want to go there for political reasons.

 

[Kyro]

Well, they said somewhere that every unit of population gives you so and so many points of loyalty per turn. Now, the question is, do population units "remember" their civ/nationality? Or does a city, once conquered, immediately exert loyalty pressure in your favor(?) That would indeed be weird, since you just subjugated them.

Which is what I thought should have been the first assumption whenever one thinks about the idea behind loyalty.

It's kind of hard to be loyal unless you remember who you're loyal to isn't it?

If loyalty flips so easily through a means that should have caused the exact opposite response then the idea itself is a logical contradiction.

 

[Arent11]

Which is what I thought should have been the first assumption whenever one thinks about the idea behind loyalty.

It's kind of hard to be loyal unless you remember who you're loyal to isn't it?

If loyalty flips so easily through a means that should have caused the exact opposite then the idea itself is a logical contradiction.

That's why I'm a bit reluctant to discuss loyalty (& whether it encourages wars) because I'm pretty sure the exact mechanics have not been explained yet.

 

[leandrombraz]

I actually enjoy my total peace games (not one offensive DOW and no conquering of cities or city-states). I find I make a ton more money with a totally peaceful game than I do with an early war game. I'm absolutely rolling in cash (gold) right now in my Aztec game. Though it helps I have a ton of luxuries and no happiness problems. Which leads to a gripe of mine. Even though my warmongering penalties decline to zero in past games, the AI seems to know that I conquered cities in the past, and doesn't like me as much as a result. Which results in less trades and less money. When I expand peacefully the AI is much nicer to me, and less wars declared on me. Of course I'm playing one difficulty level lower than usual because it can be difficult to compete without taking cities.

I'm not sure how I will play in Rise and Fall. Probably some early war games, some all peace games, and some total war games as I do now.

I had this same issue recently. I got some warmongering in early game, liberated CSs, gave a city back, ended up with around -8, which didn't stay long enough to affect my relationships. Still, it felt like everyone still cared about my warmongering, even though it faded several turns ago. My deals where all crap regardless of relationship, like 1 gpt for a luxury. It remained like that for the whole game. There's definitely something wrong.

 

[empresskiova]

I had this same issue recently. I got some warmongering in early game, liberated CSs, gave a city back, ended up with around -8, which didn't stay long enough to affect my relationships. Still, it felt like everyone still cared about my warmongering, even though it faded several turns ago. My deals where all crap regardless of relationship, like 1 gpt for a luxury. It remained like that for the whole game. There's definitely something wrong.

Sometimes I think it also ends up being about the AI having bad Gold-Management skills. While I can reliably get to 150 gpt by Rennasaince (often more), the AI can only get up about 15 gpt. Although, Civs without happiness issues will not care about your luxes nearly as much.

Of course, -8 for warmomgering is enough to affect your standing with a Civ, but the positives will generally outweigh it. They may see the light closer to late game. You can also ask for a pile of gold at once instead of gpt.