Agendas are making a return.... Yay or Nay?

[Roald Amundsen]

I for one, am not very happy to see agendas making a return to Civ 7. This was one of my least favorite features of Civ 6 and I was really hoping they would scrap it for something more interesting. How much information do we have on the implementation of the system this time around? Has it been toned down a little perhaps? Or is it pretty much the same?

I also didn't like how in Civ5, Civ's would "play to win" meaning any nation you'd have a game long good relationship with would backstab you as soon as they could see you were winning. My peronal favorite so far was Civ4. Knowing the Civ's was a matter of playing against them and getting to know "their little quirks". Also, most games ended up with big factions, or "blocks" of civs playing against each other, as nations would embrace different religions. This made religion something you actually had to look into and care about. Adopting the wrong one is usually crucial in 4, just because of the diplomatic game. Any thoughts?

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I didn't like them in VI but I went for "it depends" because it's still possible they have been tweaked for this iteration. If it's exactly the same system, it's a Nay from me.

It was meant to give each leader a personality in VI but it had entirely the opposite effect, imo.

 

[Uberfrog]

I understand wanting your AI personas to have a personality. Unfortunately I think the implementation is shallow and leads to quite insane behaviour. They also feel quite arbitrary.

I think I would prefer more rounded AI personality traits like the older games had - inclinations towards warmongering, religion, etc.

 

[nicki_boy777]

I really dont like them. It didnt give leaders personality, it just made them act like spoiled kids.

 

[Big J Money]

I lean slightly toward liking agendas more than disliking them, but I think they could be implemented better. The thing I like about them is that they add some randomness to dealings with AI so that they aren't completely deterministic, and I like that they take into consideration a lot of varying gameplay mechanics or content, rather than just being about the same (obvious) factors for every civ: military size, religion, borders, government, etc.

 

[Aquila SPQR]

It depends on whether the AI will bother me with pointless, useless and annoying calls telling me they like or dislike what I did.

 

[stealth_nsk]

It depends on the implementation. In Civ6 it wasn't good, but it wasn't good either, just a waste of mechanics, IMHO.

 

[Rajul]

Agendas was the worst idea in Civ6, i am disappointed to see them coming back.

 

[King of Prussia]

I like leaders having different personalities. Sadly agendas werent well executed in Civ6. Hopefully they are better here.

 

[Cacaso]

I'm not very happy because I think the way agendas were implemented in CIV6 wasn't very good.

I think the fact that each leader has a personal agenda based on historical factors is good, perfectly plausible, and I think it gives a flavor to each historical personality.

However, the fact that the second agenda was drawn was what generated some aberrations, such as the "air power agenda" during antiquity, which didn't make sense. Since the agenda was drawn at the beginning of the game and remained forever, this generated very dissonant situations.

I think that if the system for choosing the second agenda of the CIVs was redefined in each of the three eras (antiquity, exploration, industrial) we could have better results. Some agendas would be exclusive to each era (to avoid "air power" or similar, since antiquity).

Another thing that could be done is for the selection system to be rational according to the CIV's situation in the game. For example, if the CIV has/will found a religion, it will have an agenda based on that, if it is on a peninsula on the map, it will have a "peninsular people" agenda that would deeply dislike anyone who founded cities/towns in that area, or if a CIV that has few cities in relation to its militarily stronger neighbors will have a "paranoid" agenda, or if the CIV has few cities in the old world, it will gain a "colonizing" agenda that would dislike anyone who founded cities in the new world...

But I think that in the end, a system similar to this one, where the choices/draws were adapted to the CIV's situation, will not be implemented. We will probably just have a draw based on a pull of options, if we have a draw for each new era, it will already be a good step forward. So overall, I don't think the system is all bad, but I don't know if the implementation in practice will be the best possible, but later the MODs can adjust that.

 

[ColtSeavers]

Please No! AI couldn't handle them in Civ 6, and they just feel too gamey overall. I didn't like them at all in Civ 6.

 

[Linklite]

I think the base concept was good, implementation was poor. I think it would be good if the different leaders had different base personalities that are tweaked by agendas, rather than generic personalities that.get.dictated.by their agendas.

They also need to contextualise agendas and how the AI uses them as well. I got sick of being whinged at by Harold because I had no navy...on a map with no seas or lakes, or Caesar ranting at me for not killing Barbarians...when Barbs had been turned off.

 

[Ordnael]

I really dont like them. It didnt give leaders personality, it just made them act like spoiled kids.

That's the way I act when I'm playing:
Is that a lone unescorted or poorly defended settler I see there?
Oh, but the AI CIV is about befriend me (green smile not turquoise)!
...
Proceeds to capture said settler anyway

 

[Takfloyd]

Agendas as they were in Civ VI and as they seem to still be based on the examples we have seen in VII: Big Nay.

Agendas as a concept, if the agendas actually made some historical and logical sense: Yay.

 

[dagriggstar]

I dislike the random agendas because often they counteract or overpower the leaders historic agenda. The end result often seemed to be random personalities

The historic agendas should be fine on their own.

Perhaps with stuff like sanctions, diplomacy overall will have a better feel, in turn making agendas more relevant and interesting as a game mechanic.

 

[Siptah]

I hope the thresholds are more nuanced/granular/dynamic. A single boat more or less than player X should not make the difference between love and hate for having a strong navy.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Agendas was the worst idea in Civ6, i am disappointed to see them coming back.

It's funny that Firaxis 1/3 rule didn't apply to the terrible diplomacy/agenda system they created for 6

 

[stealth_nsk]

It's funny that Firaxis 1/3 rule didn't apply to the terrible diplomacy/agenda system they created for 6

But they've totally rebuilt diplomacy...

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

It depends. The concept of Agendas isn't terrible. It was the implementation that was lackluster in Civ 6. When the agenda matched the historical personality of the leader, like OG Cleopatra, then I liked the result. When the agenda serves the furtherance of the leader's unique ability, it feels too gamey. Particularly, the "don't settle where we want to settle" agendas. Some of them are even contrary to the personality they are meant to portray in an effort to complement the leader ability.

 

[ColtSeavers]

I hope the thresholds are more nuanced/granular/dynamic. A single boat more or less than player X should not make the difference between love and hate for having a strong navy.

Well, that's what I exactly worry about the Civ Switching Mechanics, too. Finding three horses makes you a Mongol, finding only 2, you remain Roman. Mechanics like these may sound great on paper, but they are very hard to implement sensibly in practice.