In the intricate dance of power and influence that defines Civilization 6, loyalty stands as a pivotal mechanic, a constant pressure that can either solidify an empire’s foundations or crumble them from within. The existing system, where each city manages its own loyalty, is a delicate balancing act of local factors. But what if this paradigm were shattered? What if every city in a civilization drew from and contributed to a single, unified loyalty pool? This seemingly simple change would unleash a cascade of strategic reconsiderations, fundamentally reshaping the very fabric of how empires are built, expanded, and defended. Analysis on forums shows that such a shift would move the game from a series of localized loyalty puzzles to a grand, empire-wide strategic challenge, where every decision, from settling a new city to assigning a governor, would have far-reaching and immediate consequences for the entire civilization.
The End of Localized Rebellions: A Double-Edged Sword
Under the current system, a newly founded or conquered city is a fragile entity, susceptible to the gravitational pull of nearby rival civilizations. A common strategy is to carefully manage the loyalty of these frontier cities through governors, policy cards, and garrisoned units. With a shared loyalty pool, the concept of a single city rebelling due to localized pressure would become obsolete. Instead, the entire civilization would face a collective loyalty crisis or enjoy unwavering stability.
According to the player community, this would have profound implications for expansion. Aggressive, forward-settling players would no longer need to worry about a new city immediately flipping. As long as the empire’s overall loyalty remains positive, any new settlement, no matter how close to a rival, would be instantly and unconditionally loyal. This would encourage bolder and more aggressive land grabs, as the primary brake on rapid expansion—localized loyalty pressure—would be removed.
However, this same mechanic would introduce a new, more insidious threat. A single, empire-wide loyalty pool would mean that the negative pressures from multiple frontier cities would accumulate, draining the loyalty of the entire civilization. A player might successfully plant three new cities deep in enemy territory, but the combined negative loyalty from all three could plunge the entire empire into a state of unrest, causing a domino effect of collapsing yields and, in a worst-case scenario, a catastrophic, empire-wide rebellion.
The Rise of the “Loyalty Anchor” City
With a shared loyalty pool, the concept of a “loyalty anchor” would become a cornerstone of strategic planning. Many professional gamers suggest that players would prioritize the development of a few megacities with immense populations and a concentration of loyalty-boosting wonders and buildings. These cities would serve as the bedrock of the empire’s stability, generating a massive surplus of positive loyalty that would be shared across the entire civilization.
A popular strategy would be to identify cities with high growth potential and funnel resources and trade routes into them to maximize their population. Wonders like the Statue of Liberty, which provides a significant loyalty boost, would become even more hotly contested. The presence of a high-population capital, with its inherent loyalty bonus, would also be a significant factor. A player with a 30-population capital and a couple of 20-population core cities could likely afford to settle numerous low-population frontier cities without a significant drop in overall loyalty.
This would also change the calculus of city placement. Instead of a “wide” empire of many smaller cities, players might be incentivized to build “tall,” focusing on a smaller number of highly developed urban centers. The strategic value of a city would be measured not just by its resource output but by its contribution to the empire’s collective loyalty.
Governors: From Local Managers to National Figures
In the current game, governors are primarily local administrators, assigned to individual cities to bolster their loyalty and provide specialized bonuses. With a shared loyalty pool, their role would be transformed. Instead of providing a flat +8 loyalty to a single city, a governor’s loyalty bonus would be added to the national pool.
This would make the choice of governor promotions even more critical. Amani, the Diplomat, with her ability to exert loyalty pressure on foreign cities, would become a powerful offensive tool, capable of draining the loyalty of an entire rival civilization. Victor, the Castellan, with his area-of-effect loyalty bonus, could be stationed in a cluster of cities to provide a significant boost to the national pool.
The player community predicts that this would lead to a more strategic and less reactive use of governors. Instead of rushing a governor to a newly conquered city to prevent it from flipping, players would deploy them to locations where their unique abilities could have the greatest impact on the empire’s overall loyalty balance. A governor’s presence would be a statement of national intent, a tool to project power and influence across the entire map.
Warfare and Conquest: A New Calculus of Risk and Reward
The implications of a shared loyalty pool on warfare would be particularly dramatic. The current “loyalty flipping” strategy, where a player can conquer a city without firing a shot by overwhelming it with loyalty pressure, would be both easier and more difficult. It would be easier in the sense that a player with a massive loyalty surplus could target a rival’s entire empire, causing a slow but steady drain on their national loyalty pool. A sustained campaign of loyalty pressure, using spies, rock bands, and the “Bread and Circuses” project, could potentially cause an entire civilization to collapse into a collection of free cities.
However, conquering a single city would become a much more calculated risk. Capturing an enemy city would instantly add its negative loyalty to the conqueror’s national pool. A high-population city, while a valuable prize, would also be a significant loyalty liability. A player on a conquering spree would need to carefully manage their empire’s overall loyalty, lest their victories abroad lead to collapse at home.
Analysis on forums shows that this would encourage a more “all or nothing” approach to warfare. Instead of piecemeal conquests, players might be incentivized to launch massive, decisive campaigns aimed at crippling an enemy’s ability to generate loyalty. This could involve targeting their high-population cities, pillaging their entertainment complexes, and using spies to foment unrest.
The Economic Impact: A Shift in Priorities
A shared loyalty pool would also have a significant impact on a civilization’s economic strategy. The need to maintain a positive loyalty balance would force players to prioritize happiness and amenities in a way that the current system does not. A civilization with a large number of unhappy cities would see its national loyalty plummet, leading to a sharp decline in yields across the entire empire.
This would make entertainment complexes and water parks much more valuable, not just for their local benefits but for their contribution to the national loyalty pool. The “Bread and Circuses” project would become a powerful tool for boosting empire-wide loyalty, and players might find themselves running it in multiple cities simultaneously to counteract the negative loyalty from aggressive expansion.
Furthermore, the choice of policy cards would be heavily influenced by the need to manage national loyalty. Cards that provide amenities, housing, and other happiness-related bonuses would become essential for any large empire. The strategic use of these cards would be a key factor in determining a civilization’s ability to expand and project power.
A More Dynamic and Interconnected World
Ultimately, a shared loyalty pool would create a more dynamic and interconnected gameplay experience. The fate of every city would be tied to the fate of the empire as a whole, and every decision would have far-reaching consequences. This would force players to think more holistically about their civilization, to balance the needs of their core cities with the ambitions of their frontier settlements.
While the current loyalty system provides a compelling and challenging puzzle, a shared loyalty pool would transform it into a grand strategic game of its own. It would be a system that rewards careful planning, strategic foresight, and a deep understanding of the intricate web of pressures that shape the world of Civilization 6. The player who can master the art of managing a national loyalty pool would be the one who could truly build an empire to stand the test of time.