Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Horizons, Feb 10, 2018.
Probably like eating 10 big Mac’s, you feel happy for a while then get bloated and unhappy.
At the moment loyalty doesn't really work well to prevent steamrolling but that's simply because the AI still can't put up a proper fight. If you can keep taking cities in a couple of turns there is no time to flip back.
You probably have to worry more about a strong neighbour next to the civ you're invading.
I thought I was playing the game incorrectly after a few city flips so I checked out some threads and I guess I'm not alone. Literally just made an account for this topic after lurking for a while. I was playing as Genghis Khan immortal difficulty and after 3 city flips I figured that razing would be the best choice. I razed every city I conquered except for the capitals (since loyalty pressure from a civ is gone when the civ is gone) and basically blitzed through every civ with keshigs. I don't know if there's another way someone could play war in this expansion without falling too far behind. Trying to stabilize loyalty while slow pushing wastes too many turns and killing immortal AIs that have walls of (dumb sacks of hp) units in a few turns is unrealistic. The only civ that could probably blitz an higher difficulty AI imo is Scythia. But yeah if you planning to play war in a playthrough I recommend razing all cities but capitals and ignoring loyalty mechanic .
I think if they wanted to nerf war, which definitely needed a nerf, they should have reintroduced the civ 5 mechanic with courthouses to slow down the war player with a less potent version of the loyalty mechanic. maybe a few number tweaks ?
I disagree, what you're describing is exactly how it should be working. If you want to actually conquer cities to add to your empire you need to plan ahead. For instance you could clear out all his units first and bring down the walls of a couple of cities and then take them all in one turn and bring in some governors.
This is the third best option I have seen.
Option 1. Take them so fast with Cavalry knights that it’s not an option
Option 2. Reduce 3 then take them all in 1 turn
Option 3 Raise them
Option 4 Settle cities near before taking.
But yes, while the cities have no walls and when they do rams make it too easy this game will still be too easy to steamroller.
Loyalty's easy to manage; it's the point of the system that unlike nearly everything else in Civ VI you do actually have to manage it to succeed - you shouldn't be able to keep cities that are too isolated. If you want to colonise a new area, just build two or three settlers and settle multiple cities at the same time rather than one after the other - that way they influence one another from the start.
Also, aim to be in a golden age when you settle ahead (and pay attention to which age the nearest civs are in). Loyalty becomes largely irrelevant once you have a monument, relatively high population, and perhaps an entertainment complex - you should also be getting 3-6 loyalty from amenities by default. If you settle early in a Golden Age you have 30+ turns to develop the cities.
Apart from anything else, the age system does almost literally nothing without it, and being in a Dark Age would always be preferable to being in a Normal Age because you get extra policy cards and have no downside whatsoever.
It’s the time before that which is quite long when you can suddenly find your healthy city suddenly go red because a civ has 2 cities near it with pop7. This has quite
The age system also has some strong features if you get things right. I would not underestimate some of those dedications.
Hence settling another nearby and ensuring you settle near someone in a lower Age.
The age system is great, but it's basically a way to manage expansion (which makes it much more interesting than just 'when do I get free stuff?') - you want to push for Golden Ages when you want to expand, regardless of the dedications, and Dark Ages basically force you to stop expanding even though you probably aren't going to suffer any actual penalties to your existing cities. I've been underwhelmed by Golden Age Dedications - not because they aren't strong, but because much of the time I'd really rather have era score to keep me ticking along to the next Age or set me up for a Golden Age when I'm ready to push forward - so I want golden ages mainly for the loyalty boost. If I roll the option to faith-buy settlers and have the resource to do so, that's just a bonus.
For recently captured cities to not "act like sheep" when conquered, I'd almost prefer going back to the partisans/rebellion period...
Razing them is much better because you can just plant your own later instead and ignore the loyalty penalties anyways with much less hassle, and you get to put the cities where you want! I'm currently playing a multiplayer game with 5 other players and in war with one of them. Option 1, 2 are very difficult since cities usually are around rivers with a single melee unit to block most of the cavalry with many ranged units, usually archers or crossbows to spam. Also i don't understand what you mean take them so fast with cavalry knights? Knights require iron which early game you will only have 1 or 2. Your option 2 basically means my army would be completely massive compared to my opponents. How about the close wars with 2 warring players? or vs a diety ai? That's why raze would probably be the best option because its so crippling if a city flips. If the city flips you waste around 3-5 turns and it literally ruins your war game. 3-5 turns is another ai or civ simcitying another building or district etc. Let me know what you think.
I thought they were still around, well partisans at least. There is also still a rebellion count in the XML
Settlers cost and time to develop, it’s a no brainier to keep as far as I prefer.
There is another option, gonfor peace, peace lowers the anti loyalty a lot.
Yea the settlers waste too much time, that's why I usually I've only kept caps and CCs. Suing for peace means you are basically screwed in the war and have wasted so many turns it becomes a huge setback in a mp or higher difficulty game. There is a tradeoff i spose. When a player is going war there is a clock on eliminating a civ ASAP to take and get their cities up and running. However, with the loyalty it takes way to long to slow conquer everything, or conquer then peace strat which won't work vs real players or most AI.
I don't know if you have tried the keep method for the cities. It's usually a 30-40 turn amount of time to get the cities up and running on online speed.
There aren't many instances of cities being successful, but there are countless instances where a city rebelled and military had to be sent in to re-conquer it. I think that's where there's a bit of disconnect for you. You're not thinking of those instances where there had to be a brutal military reprisal. The Bar Kokhba Revolt established an independent Israel for two years (for much of the province). It had to be put down with force.
What difficulty are you playing on? I haven't experienced anything like what you describe, but I went down a difficulty to practice.
Just started a new game with a map setup designed to hit multiple achievements I don't yet have (I'm behind on map type and size because I tend to play Huge Fractal/Shuffle): Deity, Wilhemina, Archipelago, Small.
Not sure if the loyalty system was really considered for archipelago maps as it's sadly something you seem able to ignore - I was happy getting into a Classical Dark Age since I wasn't expanding outside my own island, where no pressure applied, and propelled towards a Golden Age so quickly that I was assured of a Heroic Age before the era countdown began (Wilhemina's huge buff to adjacency makes getting that era score easy; I also lucked upon the Barrier Reef and was in a position to settle the Matterhorn, handily compensating for a lack of barbarians and villages. I also had a single camp available to my second city so the Temple of Artemis was attainable). The first island I've identified as an expansion target has only minor loyalty pushback from Gorgo on the next island along (who has a really poor starting position hampered by having Baghdad plonked down in one of its three city spots - in contrast I have six spots on mine including Toronto and ignoring snowy Armagh, four of which - including Toronto - I've already settled).
I'll happily move in when I get my Heroic Age, and maybe make a push towards Macedon (the randomness generator was kind to me in seeding the map full of AI civs utterly unsuited to an archipelago game - I recall in Civ V that archipelago civ choice often seemed biased towards seafaring civs) so I can claim the Barrier Reef spot on their island that they hadn't even explored, and Wilhemina's trade ability will help with the tiny malus I'll get - Gorgo might just be in bad enough shape that I'll pressure her cities, though I suspect she's too far away.
Having played a few games now, I can say the loyalty system actually does not really hamper warmongering, it just creates some rules that you have to follow. In my current game as Germany, I've been able to wage a Golden Age casus belli war against Persia with no loyalty problems whatsoever. But Persia was pressed up against my borders, and I made sure to capture a city closest to my cities first, use the Castellan governor, use the policy card that gives loyalty for garrison units just to be sure. The city remained at full loyalty and then I captured the Persian capital and it remained at full loyalty as well. I've been able to steamroll Persia with no loyalty issues. What you can't do, especially in the early game, is try to capture a city far away from your civ that is close to the enemy capital. That will create some loyalty issues for you every time. The bottom line is you just have to be more strategic and methodical about what cities you capture and use the loyalty buffs to your advantage. I love the new loyalty system a lot. It creates an extra layer of things to consider, forces empires into a more realistic and coherent territory, makes the game more interesting, and adds a peaceful way to take cities.
I for one love this new mechanic. While Loyalty does not 100% get rid of forward settling, it sure does limit the scope of it.
I cant even remember how many times I Restarted a game bc of so dumb AI forward settling me
Yeah, I love that loyalty discourages forward settling. It also strongly discourages what I call rear-settling (settling a city behind your civ). The AI loves to fill every empty spot, even that tundra on the far side of your civ that you neglected. Now, if the AI tries that, the new city will flip to you. Getting rid of forward settling and rear settling, has fixed one of the major long standing problems with the civ franchise since civ1.
Loyalty is overall a great addition, but I've found one problem in my current game. Bringing back a conquered civ seems to be almost impossible now. The first city you liberate will rebel faster than you can can liberate the rest.
On the plus side, it still gets rid of your warmonger reputation and once it becomes a free city you can take it again and keep it.
I guess it's the thought that counts.
Edit: I hate it when a post full of typos gets qoted. Serves me right for posting drunk.
That makes sense but it's unfortunate. I think they could easily fix that by giving a liberated civ's only city the base free city loyalty, at least until there are more cities providing pressure in that civ's favour.
Or provide all Palaces the same loyalty defence that City States receive. Maybe add it to the Government Plaza, too, so it can apply to two cities. Just to help small civs stay afloat. It's not like small, distinct groups don't form fierce internal loyalty when surrounded by large groups of "others".
Separate names with a comma.