Not living in America is a Denouncible Offense!

[King Phaedron]

I may not have noticed all this time, because I don't usually have America anywhere nearby in my games, but I've had several now where this is case, and every single time, they denounce me very shortly after meeting in like turn 10. Always because of his Agenda, I'm where the continents change not on his continent. By contrast he quickly becomes best friends with someone who is on his continent. In none of these games did they denounce me as a prelude to war either. Most of the time he didn't even send up a scout to assess my situation.

Teddy, or at least Rough Rider Teddy, is too too hyper obsessed with his Agenda. England has a similar agenda, but I've never had them denounce me just for not living on their continent. England's agenda is lousy too, but it has a certain logic to it. Victoria wants to cultivate friendly relations nearby while focusing on settling around the world.

I can't see any Logic to the agenda for America. They have a +5 combat bonus on their home continent, why would they want to be friends with other powers on it? That is the polar opposite of what a player would do, by the way. The AI is great for overall management, but not so good at making big decisions. So I always play in hotseat multiplayer mode now, rather then single player, and I can intervene sometimes to get them out of a rut. I tend to play two dedicated Civs, someone to keep my main Civilization in check.

You can't easily recover from a denouncement. You can't get open borders, and they harass you. I'm not sure what kind of Joke you were trying to make with America, but it's one where you have to stay at war with them just to make them shut up and move through their lands. Sure, America has gone to war with lots of foreign powers, but it also allies with lots of foreign powers. America has it's nose in everyone's business.

Do you think America would be inclined to start with friendship or alliances to other powers on it's home continent? We don't go to war with Mexico or Canada these days, but there were wars in the past. We certainly didn't tolerate the Native Tribes to occupy land we wanted to settle. Capturing Mexico would be more of a hinderance then an asset: We'd just inherit all their problems. If anything America has been known for Civil War and atrosities on it's home continent.

America needs some kind of overhaul. A new Agenda, unrelated to it's continent, and should rightly consider it's combat bonus to be an incentive that modifies it's assessment of whether to go to war when comparing the military strength of itself and the target. Perhaps an Agenda where America is likely to get involved and take sides when anyone it knows is in conflict with anyone else. America likes to make friends and enemies and get in the thick of things, but turn 10 is too early to do any of that.

As a player I have more respect for an honest attempt at war, then having to entertain a whiny little bit... nuisence that harasses me, insults me, and wastes my time, when I haven't gone to war with anyone or done anything wrong. That's just not the experience I signed up for. I mean what, is the majority of Civ 6 player base children or something?

 

[Jaybe]

Every one of the civs can possess an agenda that is totally BOZO in many circumstances!

The problem is that players do not recognize that agendas are solely to provide political variability and are not meant to be literal. All AI 'big decisions' are made at random. To think that there is some rationale behind said agenda or action (I would focus in on denouncements because of different governments) is vanity.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

You have to look at the idea as it's "Rough Rider Teddy"s agenda, not America's agenda. He was a big proponent of the Monroe Doctrine and fought against Spain in the Spanish American war, as a result making them the predominant power in the Caribbean, which would include North America.

 

[Futumch]

It's a bit rich to have Kupe telling me off for polluting in the Ancient Era. I've seen what the Kiwis eat, they're much more responsible for gas emissions then my guys are.

 

[Quintillus]

It's contradictory, but consistent with trends in American history, which itself has contradictions. Particularly consistent in that late-1800s/pre-WWI timeframe as Alexander's Hetaroi mentions.

The +5 combat against civs on the same continent? The Spanish-American War qualifies, but so does the Mexican-American War, the War of Independence, and the many wars against Native Americans, going back before independence. Only in the War of 1812 did the U.S. not do so well in a war on its own continent.

The liking civs on the same continent? The Monroe Doctrine is almost certainly the inspiration, dating back to James Monroe, the fifth president, in 1823. The goal was specifically to prevent European powers from expanding existing or re-establishing former colonies in the New World. So it makes sense historically that the U.S. would be generally friendly to other civs on its own continent, even if it proved to be able to defeat them.

The U.S. was very isolationist until the 20th century, and it was only WWII that really changed that long term. There was a strong philosophy of not getting involved in "foreign entanglements" (to use George Washington's term) and there was little perceived need for overseas allies, especially with the buildup of the Navy in the late 1800s. Thus, while denouncing civs on other continents may be a little bit of an exaggeration (unless they start building new cities on America's continent), the hesitency to form alliances with overseas powers makes sense - and a negative relations modifier is AFAIK the only way Civ has for modeling that.

Americans from the 1800s would probably be horrified by the number of "foreign entanglements" in the past 60-75 years (not that the early Republic was immune, e.g. the Quasi War). The Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Persian Gulf War, the Afghan War, the Iraq War, and various lesser entanglements. But Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and George W. Bush aren't the leaders of the U.S. in Civ VI. And, IMO, that is a sensible choice, avoiding leaders who are modern enough to be viewed as political rather than historical choices.

-----------

As for civs being generally hostile... I'm reminded of Japan in Civ IV. They were very isolationist and hesitant to form alliances with anyone else. Or Spain, if you were a heretic. No alliance would ever happen in that case! V/VI are a bit more in-your-face with the denouncement mechanic, but having civs that are often more unfriendly than friendly isn't new.

My suggestion would be to use the Leader Pool mechanic to exclude Rough Rider Teddy and any others whose behavior you dislike from your games. There are plenty of other leaders to fill out the roster.