The loyalty system ... oh my God

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Horizons, Feb 10, 2018.

  1. SupremacyKing2

    SupremacyKing2 Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2014
    Messages:
    4,546
    Location:
    Indiana
    Actually, that is more realistic IMO.
     
  2. pgm123

    pgm123 Emperor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2017
    Messages:
    1,168
    Gender:
    Male
    I really don't think I could disagree with this take at all. My very first game, I settled too close to Sumeria and started getting a red flashing fist. I realize I had messed up and started to divert all my resources to making that city loyal and viable. It was a bit of a challenge because I didn't have any governors yet. It threw me completely off my game. In previous games, I would intentionally forward settle, make a promise to stop, and then get the boost for keeping the promise (which is a net of +1, iirc). I can still do that, but not in the same way. I even held off buying the tiles nearby because I wasn't sure I'd be able to keep the city.

    I do have a lot of policy card slots dedicated to amenities and loyalty. I'm not sure what the balance is yet, so I'll keep tweaking that. But as a non-warmonger, this adds a wrinkle to the game. I have to worry about growing my cities to get the population pressure. And if I feel like playing a warmongering game, I have to worry about the cities around.
     
  3. liv

    liv Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2010
    Messages:
    1,394
    Almost like you need a strategy LOL
     
  4. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    11,879
    Scythis settled Maikop a little close quite a while ago. Now my cities are big enough it starts to convert... simples
    upload_2018-2-10_23-53-40.png
     
  5. ToothedBomb

    ToothedBomb Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    344
    I don't know how I feel about loyalty. It didn't seem like a very big deal in my Shaka game, but maybe that's due to their loyalty bonus. I was able to conquer city after city, and loyalty issues would mostly sort themselves out (I did have one or two cards with loyalty bonuses and a governor). Waging all those wars and fighting all the time grants a lot of golden age points too, so that only improves loyalty in new cities. Finally, the pressure of all those cities and citizens grew to such an extent that many of the surrounding cities flipped over to me as well. Seems a bit unrealistic. All these people are happy to join the biggest warmonger that ever existed. I guess I'll just have to think of them being scared of me.
     
  6. Jaybe

    Jaybe civus fanaticus Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2001
    Messages:
    2,583
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Isn’t intimidation a wonderful thing? :lol:
     
  7. spfun

    spfun King

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2010
    Messages:
    655
    I had to survive -20 loyalty per turn, I did everything the game has to offer but still lost it in around 12 turns. Loyalty doesn't really do anything otherwise, 4-6 Tall cities with governer I won't lose a city and AI might lose some satellite cities, its all pretty pointless mechanic other than it now stops me from building to far away and harming some warmonger players.

    I'm finding R&F new features I just ignore, they don't change how I play, other than Ancestral Hall's free roman bath house in my 4-6 cities. That's a good bonus.
     
  8. Tech Osen

    Tech Osen Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2016
    Messages:
    1,861
    I like it. I didn't have aluminium and the only vacant spot was near a rival size 18 city with a governor. Managed to pull it of with a governor, civics, harvesting and traderoutes (dutch). I could have just smashed Birmingham into the ground but this was actually more fun.
    It makes peaceful playing more engaging, same with the new alliances.
     
    Tiger Genocide and Aussie_Lurker like this.
  9. UWHabs

    UWHabs Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,898
    Location:
    Toronto
    I had a case where were it not for loyalty, I probably would have gone to capture another English city, sue for peace, upgrade my troops, and then continue the assault. But thinking that it probably would flip, I decided to not bother going after it until I know I can take them down fully.
     
  10. SupremacyKing2

    SupremacyKing2 Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2014
    Messages:
    4,546
    Location:
    Indiana
    The fact is that warmongering was too good in the vanilla game. As soon as you had the superior force and won one or two engagements, you could then proceed to steamroll the entire enemy civ and double or triple your empire size and have the new cities up and running in no time. Loyalty is the perfect counter balance to that. You can still warmonger but now you have to take into account that the enemy population won't just roll over and accept your rule so quickly which is realistic. But you can still warmonger, you just need to pay attention to how loyalty will play out. If the enemy city is close to several of your cities, you can conquer it and not have any loyalty issues. If you are in a golden age and the enemy is in a dark age, you can conquer them more easily which makes sense. You can also blitzkrieg the capital or the largest cities and use governors and policies to help with loyalty and you will put pressure on the remaining smaller cities and maybe flip them. But what you can't do anymore is conquer one city close the enemy capital but distant from your cities, because it will flip. But that makes sense too. Think of it as that city fighting a resistance against you because it is close to their capital. The loyalty system makes capitals more important as they should be. Now, they feel more like the center of your civ. If you lose your capital, it will cripple your loyalty and your cities might flip away from you. This too makes sense to me as losing your capital should cripple your civ's morale and will to fight back.
     
    Jkchart, MooFreaky, cairnsy44 and 5 others like this.
  11. _hero_

    _hero_ King

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    803
    Keeping a single city in the middle of another civ's empire is extremely difficult, especially if they're in a golden age or you're in a dark age (or both). However, if you take 2 or 3 neighboring cities in quick succession, the loyalty issues seem to disappear instantly, and may even flip in your favor. Nothing is better than taking just a few enemy cities, getting paid a kings ransom for peace, and then peacefully flipping the rest of his cities with loyalty.
     
  12. Brian LeClaire

    Brian LeClaire Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    67
    Gender:
    Male
    That's actually not like real life at all lol.
     
  13. Brian LeClaire

    Brian LeClaire Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2016
    Messages:
    67
    Gender:
    Male
    I have to disagree with pretty much everything you said here. No disrespect intended. True you could capture several cities in vanilla and have him hand over the rest of his cities in a peace negotiation which was stupid. I can't think of one single time though that any population in history ever even had the choice whether to accept the rule or not. That's the whole point of a military victory over a city/country. If your military is strong enough to capture the city what the hell are the people going to do? The cities military is not strong enough to stop you but the peasants working the land suddenly is? In history, you can pretty much count on one hand how many cities successfully achieved a revolt after it was taken militarily. If the enemy is close to several of your cities it WILL still flip. Once it becomes a free city the pressure comes from ALL other civs around it. The only way it every easily stays with no problems is if he has no cities anywhere around you from a massive forward settle and neither does any other civ. I also disagree about the golden age making it easier. I've been in a legendary age and still could not hold one stupid city that was closer to my capitol and all other of my cities by twice the distance. I think what might be the problem is that the loyalty is not always working the way it's supposed to.
     
  14. fotonut

    fotonut Warlord

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    122
    You can still build a city far away, as long as it’s also reasonable distance from other civs. I created one about 10 away from Japan and >30 away from me, and it never dropped from 100 loyalty. Emperor/Rome.
     
    Tiger Genocide likes this.
  15. NukeAJS

    NukeAJS King

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Messages:
    850
    I've had a couple of minor hiccups while conquering, but never any big one. There are several things you can do to take care of loyalty but I've found that the best way to go is do your conquering in a golden age. Most cities won't need any assistance, unless there's a group of mega-cities.
     
    ZubieMaster likes this.
  16. 3 EMS

    3 EMS King

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Messages:
    775
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    NC
    Don't forget allies. Not to help fight the war. Allies don't apply loyalty pressure. If you can ally a targets neighbors then all you have to deal with is that civs loyalty.
     
    Tiger Genocide likes this.
  17. Horizons

    Horizons Needing fed again!

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    Messages:
    1,404
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    I've been playing non-stop since my first post and I'm starting to like it now:lol:
     
  18. PeterChu

    PeterChu Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    64
    By and large, I appreciate those changes brought about with the loyalty system in the R & F expansion. As been said, the settlement decisions by the AI civs now appear to be more ‘realistic’ than otherwise.

    In addition, it seems to me, a civ game is not a war game; at least, it is more than a game for ‘command and conquer’. Wars were very often implicated in the process of ‘civ expansion’, but a good civ game might be more interesting than a simple war game in that to some extent it could simulate those social or cultural costs involved in the violent means for civ expansion.

    In such a way, Civ 6 R & F seems to achieve the depth and complexity we once saw in the Civ 4. And packed with the era mechanism, it might be even better than the classic civ 4 in offering some very interesting gaming experiences on ‘empire-building’.
     
    Scipio1 likes this.
  19. Belzek

    Belzek Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2010
    Messages:
    42
    I love it just for the fact that when an opposing civ tries to drop a crappy little city next to your empire to snag a recently exposed resource (i.e. oil on the coast), I don't have to go to war to get it. Just wait a few turns and voila, they provided me with a free city that I don't have to waste a settler on (and I don't have to worry about WM penalties)
     
  20. NegativeZero

    NegativeZero Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2017
    Messages:
    260
    According to this reddit post, Poundmaker can make some insane Peasemonger moves with their trade routes and Magnus. They would forward settle a neighbor and send Magnus plus routes from that city focusing on high food yields in order to grow populations quickly. These populations would take the city from flipping to affecting the loyalty of the neighbor's cities.

    I'm not sure how early this strategy could work, but it looks fun and is different from the normal warmongering.

    R&F has made food yields more valuable as high pop. cities can defend lands with loyalty pressure.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2018
    Frostburn likes this.

Share This Page