Do you like the agenda system (poll)?

[Victoria]

The leaders of the colonial powers had utter contempt for the (relatively) backwards and impoverished peoples they conquered. Leaders disliking you because your behind in the tech race or cash poor seems realistic to me.

That is reflected in the colonial casus but sure... Victoria's agenda is not the best and this would be much better.

 

[VeronicaCardican]

The only aspect of the currently system that I absolutely hate is when Catherine denounces me for being weak in espionage when I don't have the ability to build a spy.

You don't need spies to please Catherine. She mainly judges you by the visibility level you have with other civs. Sending envoys and establishing embassies is sufficient usually.

 

[steveg700]

In general, Ai agendas demand that you adjust your strategy and that's a good thing.

Sounds good on paper. In-practice, having civ's dislike you because you're availing yourself of what the game offers is just going to keep players in a downward diplomacy spiral. I'm not going to choose to avoid recruiting great people to become chummy with Pedro. If anything, your example of choosing archaeologists instead of great artists feels like flailing around for any vestige of strategy in this agenda. Usually you'll be outpacing Pedro or you won't.

Likewise, I'm not going to choose to not get involved with city-states to appease Barbarosa. It's far more likely than I just have to accept that in a given game, we'll never be on good terms. He's basically just a villain amongst many villains who draw lines in the sand that I don't really think there's any practical advantage in avoiding. This heads into the real problem; the big issue isn't whether agendas make for meaningful diplomacy, but rather how enticing is it really to enjoy good diplomatic relationships? If liking a civ improved the quality of my trade routes or got me better deals for luxuries or had some advantageous treaties, then I might have to fish around more for a civ I can work with. In the absence of such, such threads as this seem largely moot.

Some agendas do exist for ludo-narrative purposes more than anything else, like agendas where the civ basically likes you for playing the game the same way they do. In these cases, there's a key element of interaction that's lacking. I think that a player should be able to actively ask a civ (or a CS) for a way to improve relationships, and the nature of that request reflects an agenda.

 

[steveg700]

You know people often misunderstand me when I say Civilization isn't a War Game. I'm not against War in Civ 6. I'm against War Bias. Civ 6 has a very pro-conflict stance that encourages war. I hope it reverts back to a neutral stance where we are free to choose our path without being handicapped for doing so.

It doesn't seem that AI civ's actively want to cultivate relationships They have their triggers for negative or positive modifiers, and it is simply a mine field for the player to navigate on his own, rather than have the AI's try to steer other civ's in a positive direction. They *do* try to create animosity through belligerent actions (e.g. attacking suzerainties and making demands). I think the ultimate expression of a diplomacy goes beyond one-to-one relationships, and should lead us to epic games where blocks form that steer the world at large into hot or cold wars.

 

[Victoria]

Likewise, I'm not going to choose to not get involved with city-states to appease Barbarosa

Your choice, but have you tried?
Barbarossa's unhappiness with CS is -6 friends Is +9....

These agendas can be worked, holding off on CS for a short period of time has rewards, it does not have to be for long.

It's your choice and sometimes the rewards are not worth it, sometimes they are.

You use the word choice and that's what I like about this game.... it's not as clear cut in my view as A+ B +C here is the guide now do what I did.... it's about situation. Sure some of the agendas are weird but having played the agendas for a while now they have done some smart things where some leaders are early game friends, some are later and you have to work at it.

Sure just ignore them, your choice if you do not want to explore the benefits. We are still exploring diplomacy and there are benefits indeed. For a start they seem a lot more ready to trade luxes on an even footing.

 

[steveg700]

You use the word choice and that's what I like about this game.... it's not as clear cut in my view as A+ B +C here is the guide now do what I did.... it's about situation.

As I said, the choice is more often than not is indeed a clear-cut choice, because in most situations the benefits to having that relationship simply aren't there. There's a choice, but it's for options that aren't worthwhile. The agendas are a sound idea, but you're ascribing depth and flexibility to a system that is facile, reactive and only sporadically relevant. If I wait until Barbarosa is my friend to start sending out envoys, my experience is that I'm just deferring his scorn and eventual hostility.

What's worth pondering to my mind is how an agenda actually reflects the AI's own strategy, which is after all actually what an agenda is supposed to represent, not simply be something another party has to navigate. Consider that a civ may have an agenda that basically amounts to liking civ's that are militarily unthreatening, while another civ may have the virtual opposite agenda that amounts to liking civ's that are militarily formidable. Why? What does either give way to? Is Cleopatra actively wooing other civ's into protecting her while she bangs out wonders, or is she just setting herself up to be well-disposed toward her conqueror? When Hojo sees that I meet his standards of enlightenment, does that somehow fit into long-term goals? Those of civ's like Peter, Mvemba, and Monetzuma are the best-purposed because they get superior benefits out of the basic facets of inter-civ relationships.

 

[Morningcalm]

If there are no agendas which are difficult or impossible to meet then allying every civ on the map would be trivial. Being forced to make some choices and getting into conflicts (whether you want it or not) makes for a better game.

Sometimes you can't make choices. Sometimes, agendas are virtually impossible to meet in many cases, and even then, we have other issues that can undercut successfully navigating the agendas (like weird AIs saying we made promises not to move our units near their borders, and then saying we broke it when they move their units near, etc.) An agenda system which is nigh impossible to meet is just another wheel being used to crush the player (along with early AI aggression and massive barbarian horseman invasions 10 turns in).

 

[steveg700]

Agendas are too black-and-white. On a map with few areas of water and/or no seas, Hardrada shouldn't hate everyone for lacking ships, *especially* if he has none himself. Same goes for Qin hating people for building wonders, when he has built none himself.

Well, in that case, Qin resents that you are building wonders when he can't. He doesn't like that you're besting him at his own game. I'm not sure I see the non sequitur there. Now, Harald is a funny bugger, because when he can't build a strong navy himself, he will hand out positive modifiers to the player for who also has no naval units, maybe just for having some workboats or a harbor. Guess it's better that he like civ's with strong navies that he simply dislike everyone who doesn't.

Sometimes you can't make choices. Sometimes, agendas are virtually impossible to meet in many cases, and even then, we have other issues that can undercut successfully navigating the agendas (like weird AIs saying we made promises not to move our units near their borders, and then saying we broke it when they move their units near, etc.) An agenda system which is nigh impossible to meet is just another wheel being used to crush the player (along with early AI aggression and massive barbarian horseman invasions 10 turns in).

Well, the very premise presented by Stinkubus that you are rebutting--that "without impossible agendas, allying with every civ would be trivial"--is highly reductive. There are levels of challenge between "impossible" and "trivial".

Should be fine for some civ's to be villains. I mean, a domination victory means eventually being at war with everyone. But the flipside of that should be that other civ's try to curry allies against those dominators. Has anyone ever seen a civ give a gift or simply be particularly generous in its deal-making?

 

[Victoria]

There's a choice, but it's for options that aren't worthwhile.

I think they are worthwhile, I get more cash, more science, more intelligence, I get guarantees that someone will not attack me for 30 tuns. If you think they are not worthwhile then thats your choice. When I play deity and have agressive neighbours I find them invaluable.

What's worth pondering to my mind is how an agenda actually reflects the AI's own strategy,

Ok, you want it to be about them and I am happy that they are mechanics for me to play a game with. Different views, fair enough.