The loyalty system ... oh my God

[Astacius]

Freely steamrolling offers variety how?

Right now you have to steamroll in order to conquer! You are left with no other choice. Without loyality you had option to take just one city, to disembark on someone, to settle on some distant island, to open a new colony just for luxuries, right now you have to stick in the same spot and eventually steamroll someone..

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Right now you have to steamroll in order to conquer! You are left with no other choice. Without loyality you had option to take just one city, to disembark on someone, to settle on some distant island, to open a new colony just for luxuries, right now you have to stick in the same spot and eventually steamroll someone..

That's not true at all, you just have to think about it a bit more.

 

[Tech Osen]

Right now you have to steamroll in order to conquer! You are left with no other choice. Without loyality you had option to take just one city, to disembark on someone, to settle on some distant island, to open a new colony just for luxuries, right now you have to stick in the same spot and eventually steamroll someone..

Sorry but I've done all that just fine. Like Mr Jon said: it takes more planning but it works.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

If you open the loyalty panel right before choosing whether to keep or raze a newly conquered city, it gives you a great breakdown of how loyalty is calculated. You can easily see if the city will flip before choosing whether to keep it or not.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Right now you have to steamroll in order to conquer! You are left with no other choice. Without loyality you had option to take just one city, to disembark on someone, to settle on some distant island, to open a new colony just for luxuries, right now you have to stick in the same spot and eventually steamroll someone..

Nope not true. It does depend on the map though. If the one city you capture is near the enemy capital but far from your nearest city, then yeah, you will have trouble capturing it. As it should be. But if your empire is pressed up against the enemy civ, whereby you have 2-3 cities close by, then it is easy to just capture that one border city and make peace. You won't have any loyalty issues especially if you also do other things to increase loyalty.

Loyalty does change the game but I think it changes things for the better. Just like with any other new gameplay mechanic, it can take some getting used to because you have to change how you play. Your old tactics and strategies might not work anymore.

 

[KingCheops]

After my first game of R&F I'm starting to lean towards medieval style warfare. Besiege cities and burn everything outside to the ground. If I get a huge pile of gold and yields then does it really matter if I take the city? Failing that just burn the city to the ground and re-settle myself. Building settlers in R&F is ridiculously easy.

 

[Horizons]

Am I right in saying that there are never any warmonger penalties for razing Free City nations to the ground? Not 100% convinced that this is a good thing for people to do, considering that a constantly flipping city loses almost all of its population and runs the hazard of being razed to the ground by any nation in the world without penalty.

I liked the Civ4 mechanic where you could spin off a nation on another continent into another Civ, and they would be on good trading terms with you if you treated them well.

I do think this is an interesting mechanic but it needs further development! I also really dislike the ability to insta-raze large cities. You have ZERO chance of rescuing your city from capture. Please bring back the 1 pop per turn razing from Civ5 because this is ridiculous.

Also 100% agreed with those who said that you should get extra military bonus for having units stationed next to the city as well as inside it. More partisans generated in nearby woods etc, rather than getting your units ejected out of a Free City's borders.

 

[Winged Hussar]

Yeah, not a fan so far. I like the concept, but it needed play testing before it was released.

I play exclusively on historical custom maps, one particular earth map of mine being my favorite. It's big, but certain civs in Europe and Mesopotamia start within the minimum 3 tile distance. I like differences in start positions, so certain cities (such as the Persian Pasargadae) are nestled in desert/plains hills and have a production edge, while others (like the fertile Uruk) have an edge on food due to flood plains. In almost every game I had so far, before the AI has time to build another city, the bigger capital (population-wise) like Uruk flips the smaller capital, eliminating the civilization. In some cases it happens as early as turn 15. I do wish the loyalty system was toned down early in the game, or at least didn't effect capitals as much.

 

[historix69]

There are mods which add Loyalty to the Palace Building or stabilize capitals so that they cannot flip.

 

[universecreep]

I don't have a problem with the loyalty system as long as the AI knows how to use it to keep cities it takes.

The one frustrating thing I have noticed is if the AI's city becomes a free city and I have a unit or city nearby, the units it spawn will attack me. What the heck? For one, why are they immediately at war with me? Second, why would they attack me not the civ they rebelled against? ARRG - this ruins the immersion for me.

 

[isau]

One of the great things about Civ 6 is the stuff that isn't an option is often easily moddable. You can easily mod out the Loyalty system for major civs (but leave it in for city states). Just grab or create a mod file and do this:

Spoiler :

INSERT INTO Modifiers
    (ModifierId,     ModifierType,     RunOnce, Permanent, OwnerRequirementSetId, SubjectRequirementSetId)
VALUES    ('MOD_ALWAYS_LOYAL',     'MODIFIER_PLAYER_CITIES_ADJUST_ALWAYS_LOYAL', 0, 0, NULL, NULL)  ;


INSERT INTO ModifierArguments
    (ModifierId,             Name,         Type,             Value,                     Extra,     SecondExtra)
VALUES    ('MOD_ALWAYS_LOYAL',     'AlwaysLoyal',     'ARGTYPE_IDENTITY',     '1',                    NULL,     NULL) ;


INSERT INTO TraitModifiers
    (TraitType,         ModifierId)
VALUES ('TRAIT_LEADER_MAJOR_CIV',    'MOD_ALWAYS_LOYAL' );

If you want to eliminate Loyalty for you as a player, but leave it in for AIs, so you can flip them but not vice versa:

Spoiler :

INSERT INTO Modifiers
    (ModifierId,     ModifierType,     RunOnce, Permanent, OwnerRequirementSetId, SubjectRequirementSetId)
VALUES    ('MOD_ALWAYS_LOYAL',     'MODIFIER_PLAYER_CITIES_ADJUST_ALWAYS_LOYAL', 0, 0, NULL, 'PLAYER_IS_HUMAN')  ;


INSERT INTO ModifierArguments
    (ModifierId,             Name,         Type,             Value,                     Extra,     SecondExtra)
VALUES    ('MOD_ALWAYS_LOYAL',     'AlwaysLoyal',     'ARGTYPE_IDENTITY',     '1',                    NULL,     NULL) ;


INSERT INTO TraitModifiers
    (TraitType,         ModifierId)
VALUES ('TRAIT_LEADER_MAJOR_CIV',    'MOD_ALWAYS_LOYAL' );

Third option you can play my Combined Tweaks Mod as the Cree. I figured some players would want a civ that ignores Loyalty entirely, so I gave them that ability specifically for that reason.

 

[Cedbird77]

When they were designing the expansion, did they try play testing it?

So you basically cannot keep any city that you capture or build that's too far away and close to another civ. Seems like a big nerf to warmongering, but it actually just means warmongering is THE way to win now - you just raze to the ground (instantaneously, regardless of size) any city you capture. And don't bother building any new ones.

This is horrible.

We must remember that this game is a simulation. If you are in a normal or Golden Age. You will have a great chance to keep that city with some work.

When America invaded Iraq. We had no thought of keeping it. But what happened. We had a lot of resistance and missteps that caused many entities to domestic and neighborly foreign to come in and divide the nation up in many ways. ISIS, Syria, Iran,

A heck of a fight it has been. And still shall be. When you invade a nation. There is much planning to be done for what happens after. And things are very unpredictable. But the RF loyalty system is fine. I have learned how to use it in my first game that I am finishing now.

My only problem is that I am in my last Age and I was in a dark age. So I can not get the Golden Age that I quickly earned . Because there is no next age so they keep in me in this age. So I cannot keep the cities that I conquer unless I do some extraordinary things in my huge empire. But I am like one turn away from winning!!!

 

[Crezth]

at least now the citizens aren't like sheep.
that's real life bro ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Real life? It's civilization. Wake up.

 

[historix69]

...
I play exclusively on historical custom maps, one particular earth map of mine being my favorite. It's big, but certain civs in Europe and Mesopotamia start within the minimum 3 tile distance. I like differences in start positions, so certain cities (such as the Persian Pasargadae) are nestled in desert/plains hills and have a production edge, while others (like the fertile Uruk) have an edge on food due to flood plains. In almost every game I had so far, before the AI has time to build another city, the bigger capital (population-wise) like Uruk flips the smaller capital, eliminating the civilization. In some cases it happens as early as turn 15. I do wish the loyalty system was toned down early in the game, or at least didn't effect capitals as much.

The influence of food on early loyalty is very strong when players start less than 9 tiles away of each other.

There should be an additional modifier to Loyalty Influence based on Tech, Civics, Wonders, Culture production, Amenities, Military Power, etc. Especially in the beginning with 0% progress in Tech and Civics, the Loyalty Influence should be close to 0% and slowly build up while the game progresses.


The Monument gives a small amount of loyalty but the Palace interestingly does not.

Spoiler :

Example : Add 25 Loyalty to Palace Building :

insert into BuildingModifiers (BuildingType, ModifierId)
values ("BUILDING_PALACE", "PALACE_LOYALTY");

insert into Modifiers (ModifierId, ModifierType)
values ("PALACE_LOYALTY", "MODIFIER_SINGLE_CITY_ADJUST_IDENTITY_PER_TURN");

insert into ModifierArguments (ModifierId, Name, Value)
values ("PALACE_LOYALTY", "Amount", "25");

 

[Victoria]

Game one... I had no real idea about loyalty but just steamrollered and it worked.
Game two... my capital started rebelling at about turn 40 due to Gitjara settling lots of crammed fast growing cities right next to me and I was concentrating on production not food in my cap... I hated loyalty at that stage.
Game five... Ok I have a hang of this now and loyalty is not important as long as you are a little careful, you can just steamroller.
Game fifteen... ah this is cool, I do not have to steamroller now but I do need to be aware of when I go golden and what the risks of dark are and when the AI's are going dark. I have to manage my eras to get the best out of my strategy and I just cannot expet to get a golden when I need it, I have to work for it and manage it

I can understand people not liking it, you really need a lot of games to get used to it and appreciate its quite smart approach. Sure it has drawbacks and will not suit everyone but its what we have and I say its just added a layer in there that makes playing it easier in a way because we can manage golden darkness better than they can.

 

[historix69]

Part of the discussion is about Loyalty problems in historic scenarios / Earth maps where for example England starts in 3 tiles distance to Scotland, Netherlands and France. And the Netherlands have a food heavy start and their population grows quickly. And you cannot fix those problems geographically due to limits in map size.
This is different from Loyalty in a regular game where all players are supposed to start 9 tiles away or so.

Also Loyalty is a new feature so it is good to discuss it.

 

[Victoria]

Earth maps where for example England starts in 3 tiles distance to Scotland, Netherlands and France

Yes some of the old map designs do not cater well for the new rules unless you choose each civ that plays to give more space
For example a heavy europe game you really need a Europe map or a larger TSL

 

[Horizons]

I do wish they'd built on Civ4's mechanic rather than using 'free cities' (which are open targets to every civilization militarily, wtf?) and also the corporations. Why have multiple copies of resources when you can built unlimited tanks and planes from a single source of oil, or unlimited nukes from a single source of uranium etc.

What they've done in Civ6 just seems a bit shallow or primitive compared to what even Civ4 tried to do.

 

[Winged Hussar]

There are mods which add Loyalty to the Palace Building or stabilize capitals so that they cannot flip.

I was hoping someone would make a mod like that. Loyalty points from the palace is a perfect and clean solution. Thanks.

 

[trashcat]

I had Greece as a neighbor and for some reason they expanded quickly to the north late game. It proved to be to their determent and while I was in a golden age their cities started to revolt. I managed to snag two of them through pressure alone and the third I took with my military as I was approaching a dark age (whoops). I did what I could to push the population of those cities and positioned some governors nearby. It was the first game I was able to really capitalize on loyalty and I really liked it. :>