[R&F] Rise and Fall Live Stream General Thread

[UWHabs]

In today's Livestream they did mention that the RND lost its ability to provide a secondary Trade Route. So that answers that question. Hopefully the boosted loyalty on other continents bit is a satisfying replacement.

It's definitely a downgrade, especially since the loyalty boost sounds like it's only on a foreign continent, whereas the extra trade route affected the home continent too. But given that it's half a governor, that seems like a pretty strong loyalty boost when it will come into play.

 

[Disgustipated]

Makes them still map dependent. God forbid you aren't close to another continent.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

A second trade route would be really strong with the alliance system. Extra loyalty can come pretty handy and it is also half priced as a unique district. It also have extra movement on naval units and extra gold if placed on forgine continents.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

It's definitely a downgrade, especially since the loyalty boost sounds like it's only on a foreign continent, whereas the extra trade route affected the home continent too. But given that it's half a governor, that seems like a pretty strong loyalty boost when it will come into play.

It's 2 Loyalty on home continent and 4 on foreign continents. So there is some benefit for settling coasts close to London.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Capital gets +1 loyalty per population so it and cities close to it will be rather safe while the opposite is not true for other civs cities. The extra loyalty can make England much less vulnerable to loyalty issues and allow them to avoid wasting governors and policy slots to keep their empire together.

 

[UWHabs]

It's 2 Loyalty on home continent and 4 on foreign continents. So there is some benefit for settling coasts close to London.

Ah, I missed that part. So yeah, seems like England could be tough to flip cities if they have lots of coast. Definitely feels worse than it used to be before, which is kind of annoying for a lower-tier civ. They really need a "on a continent border" starting bias.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Capital gets +1 loyalty per population so it and cities close to it will be rather safe while the opposite is not true for other civs cities. The extra loyalty can make England much less vulnerable to loyalty issues and allow them to avoid wasting governors and policy slots to keep their empire together.

If you play England true to form, it will likely be strung out along a coast with less overlapping loyalty area effects to counteract the loyalty effects of other civs, even on your home continent. So the loyalty boost is much needed for England's playstyle.

And when you conquer a city with an existing Harbor, it automatically gets that loyalty bonus, making it less likely to flip back.

 

[Disgustipated]

I may have missed the screenshot and it's already been mentioned, but Colonial Offices policy card has been changed to give loyalty (on another continent of course).

 

[Giskler]

I may have missed the screenshot and it's already been mentioned, but Colonial Offices policy card has been changed to give loyalty (on another continent of course).

It's been covered together with a bunch of other cards. You'll find them somewhere in the thread.

 

[Disgustipated]

Anyone know if the cede city mechanic actually does anything? It's hard to tell from the youtube videos and streams, but it appears to do as much as it did before, nothing. I was wondering if it affected loyalty in some way, but it doesn't seem to. Perhaps the designers only intended on the cede mechanic only giving you score.

 

[Victoria]

In today's Livestream they did mention that the RND lost its ability to provide a secondary Trade Route. So that answers that question. Hopefully the boosted loyalty on other continents bit is a satisfying replacement.

As long as it still gets it as a primary

 

[Seek]

Anyone know if the cede city mechanic actually does anything? It's hard to tell from the youtube videos and streams, but it appears to do as much as it did before, nothing. I was wondering if it affected loyalty in some way, but it doesn't seem to. Perhaps the designers only intended on the cede mechanic only giving you score.

I could be wrong, but I thought I recalled seeing cede remove the "occupied" loyalty penalty.

 

[Stringer1313]

Would be a bit undynamic if true. :|

I shall hold out hope for a bisexual angle!

Agreed. I'm already sharpening my gay pitchfork.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I could be wrong, but I thought I recalled seeing cede remove the "occupied" loyalty penalty.

That would be great. And logical.

 

[bbbt]

I could be wrong, but I thought I recalled seeing cede remove the "occupied" loyalty penalty.

The question though is if they've fixed the mechanic so making peace without cede-ing doesn't remove the "occupied" penalty.

 

[stealth_nsk]

The question though is if they've fixed the mechanic so making peace without cede-ing doesn't remove the "occupied" penalty.

I'm not sure whether it's a bug anymore. "Occupied" status is actually a set of several different penalties. It could be ok to remove some of them (loyalty penalty surely should go away), while some surely should stay (diplomatic penalty with this particular civ). Whether other penalties should be removed or not - is a question of gameplay tuning.

 

[bbbt]

I'm not sure whether it's a bug anymore. "Occupied" status is actually a set of several different penalties. It could be ok to remove some of them (loyalty penalty surely should go away), while some surely should stay (diplomatic penalty with this particular civ). Whether other penalties should be removed or not - is a question of gameplay tuning.

What I mean is now the cede city trade is useless except for "roleplay" - whether or not you get the cities 'ceded' in a trade deal, they are no longer "occupied" at the end of the war. The diplomatic penalties don't change either way as far as I'm aware - or in fact they might actually increase with city cede-ing.

I assume it should work so that cities that are 'occupied' (and have loyalty penalties) keep those penalties at wars end unless officially ceded.

 

[stealth_nsk]

What I mean is now the cede city trade is useless except for "roleplay" - whether or not you get the cities 'ceded' in a trade deal, they are no longer "occupied" at the end of the war. The diplomatic penalties don't change either way as far as I'm aware - or in fact they might actually increase with city cede-ing.

I assume it should work so that cities that are 'occupied' (and have loyalty penalties) keep those penalties at wars end unless officially ceded.

Yes, I know how it works in vanilla and it's a problem. But if in R&F cede removes occupied loyalty penalty, that's a different story. Ceding immediately starts making sense even if other forms of occupied penalty aren't removed.

 

[Siptah]

In this (german) video you see a very interesting AI conquering fail. If you look before the 15 minute mark, you see how Korea and Geneva perfectly surrounded the city and brought it down to low health, despite the Castellan being there. The let's players try to peace out, but Korea declines any offers. They decide to abandon the city and move the warrior out of it (and the 2nd warrior that was just finished in there), because they would loose it once the city falls. Neither Korea nor Geneva have lost a unit in the war, while the players lost 2 or 3. Next turn, all off Geneva's units attack the warriors instead of the city. Since they are on the other side of a river and get terrain bonuses, this is a really stupid move compared to just capturing the city with one or two units (and they have plenty). In addition to that, Korea prefers to attack a nearby barbarian scout. I mean, it is great for a player if he has a chance in a situation that looks like a complete loss, but you always know you were saved because of a really, really stupid AI decision. Since the build up was so good, it's one of the biggest AI face palm moments for me that I've seen in the last months. And I don't see the reason for that at all. Even in the following turns, the AI runs around the city instead of attack, giving it a chance to heal again.

 

[Tomice]

In this (german) video you see a very interesting AI conquering fail. If you look before the 15 minute mark, you see how Korea and Geneva perfectly surrounded the city and brought it down to low health, despite the Castellan being there. The let's players try to peace out, but Korea declines any offers. They decide to abandon the city and move the warrior out of it (and the 2nd warrior that was just finished in there), because they would loose it once the city falls. Neither Korea nor Geneva have lost a unit in the war, while the players lost 2 or 3. Next turn, all off Geneva's units attack the warriors instead of the city. Since they are on the other side of a river and get terrain bonuses, this is a really stupid move compared to just capturing the city with one or two units (and they have plenty). In addition to that, Korea prefers to attack a nearby barbarian scout. I mean, it is great for a player if he has a chance in a situation that looks like a complete loss, but you always know you were saved because of a really, really stupid AI decision. Since the build up was so good, it's one of the biggest AI face palm moments for me that I've seen in the last months.

There was a very similar report from another stream, where an AI offered peace the moment it was ready to finish an enemy capital off.
I guess it really needs a priority increase for doing the final blow. Even if you don't need the city, you have done massive damage to your enemy and might trade it away for a lot of gold.

Sadly, I never found vanilla civ6 fascinating/balanced enough to have enough experience on my own (only 137 hours currently). The AI never invaded me full-scale so far
I hope for improvement with R&F, and I'm cautiously optimistic so far.