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

[TheGrayFox]

But they've totally rebuilt diplomacy...

Totally rebuilt diplomacy into a currency based system while then still giving us the same familiar and quite terrible agenda system from 6 on top of it all. All I'm saying is that if Agendas were part of the 1/3rd of things Firaxis decided to throw out, most wouldn't complain.

 

[stealth_nsk]

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.

I think the main thing is how agenda affects actual games. In perfect world you could make some choices, which allow you to satisfy some of the leader agenda in exchange for losing something else (i.e. satisfying agenda of other leaders). More or less good example in Civ6 is Montezuma where you could improve your relations by selling luxuries to him. But the majority of the leaders are like Chandragupta. where it's like "You spawned near him, congratulations, prepare for war".

I'm afraid Augustus could be not so great in this regard. I imagine most of the players will not alter their city/town strategy just to please Augustus, so this agenda will be just a force of nature.

Totally rebuilt diplomacy into a currency based system while then still giving us the same familiar and quite terrible agenda system from 6 on top of it all. All I'm saying is that if Agendas were part of the 1/3rd of things Firaxis decided to throw out, most wouldn't complain.

The rest of the diplomacy system actually looks brilliant so far:

1. Having spendable resource forces you to make strategic choices about where to invest it
2. Having buildings producing this resource allow balancing your civilization focus between diplomacy and other areas
3. Having separate relationship meter should make diplomacy working in MP normally for the first time in multiplayer. If you backstab your long-time ally, you suffer was weariness badly
4. It also should enhance single player. There still could be some AIs which could backstab, but it's ok knowing what they'll suffer for it

And for agendas - actually the idea of leaders reacting to your actions differently depending on your personality is a good roleplay (and potentially gameplay) mechanics. Again, it's a question of implementation.

 

[Siptah]

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.

True. But I think it would help there if the thresholds are high enough (i.e., having three horses is really rare) it's ok. If fulfilling means something extraordinary happened, so to speak. Similarly, it wouldn't make sense to me if America is unlocked by 1 city on the new continent. It should be more of an achievement (30 pop on the new continent?), not something that happens anyway or by chance.The same could be said for agendas: less than 10 boats is always a small fleet, no matter if player X has even less.

 

[rocksinmypath]

The agenda system itself has good potential, but it feels out of place in 6 because:

1. Most agendas don't make sense gameplay-wise.
2. There aren't enough diplomacy actions to allow the AI leaders to a) express who they are or b) capitalize on opportunities to maximize the gameplay utility of their unique abilities through interactions with the player.
3. Agendas don't seem to affect how the AI plays the game deeply enough.

1) is mostly a matter of the change in design principle when it comes to agendas. Gameplay seems to have been at best an afterthought in 6's agenda design. Examples where gameplay consideration is seemingly absent:

- Poundmaker, who adores you as an ally, but everyone's your BFF once you befriend them, so this doesn't do anything.
- Caesar, who wants you to clear barbarian camps, even though that means he's missing out on an enormous amount of gold.
- Trajan, who respects you for having a lot of land, because that is so relevant to his ability of getting a free monument in every city he founds.

Re: 2), 7 shows promise, but it remains to be seen how well agendas synergize with the expanded diplomacy system. What I have in mind is like this:

- You do something to satisfy an AI leader's agenda.
- The leader's opinion of you improves.
- The leader makes an attempt to improve relationship with you.
- Improved relationship opens up access to collaborative actions between the two of you, and amongst those options is something that clearly gives the leader an advantage due to their special abilities.

- You do something to go against a leader's agenda.
- The leader likes you less.
- The leader tries to worsen relationship with you.
- Worsened relationship either opens up access to disruptive actions against you or gives them better justification. For instance, if war with you is what will allow the leader to best utilize their abilities, it would senses for them to prepare for war by being openly hostile to you. I think the relationship meter has an effect on war weariness, now.

Re 3), there were some obvious attempts in 6 to really force some leaders to behave differently from others. One example is Robert, who cannot declare war on you if one of your cities is close enough to one of his. While I'm not sure if I want the way agendas affect AI behaviour to be so one dimensional, (there's also a small problem that while he can't declare war, he still keeps sending units your way as if he wants to fight.) I think it's a good place to start because at least it meaningfully affects the way you play. What I hate in 6 is that most leaders ignore their agenda or their abilities and just attack you because you're near them and weak. I'm Egypt and settling next to a bunch of floodplains next to Ethiopia. Menelik attacks me. Just why? I'm hopeful 7 will be better in this regard with the expanded AI team being able to put more flavour into AI behaviour.

 

[Zaarin]

I for one look forward to Harald telling me how easy to raid the coasts of my inland empire are and Wilhelmina threatening me with her umbrella for not trading with her from the other side of the world for a second game in a row. Agendas were a huge step backward in terms of distinctive AI personalities, and I'm very surprised to see them returning--and returning more or less unmodified from what we can see. Some have said the problem with agendas was implementation, but I disagree. I think the only way to implement agendas in an interesting way would be as a small part of a bigger personality system. Agendas themselves are basically the AI's way of reminding you that they're programs, not people, and that's a problem.

 

[AntSou]

I disliked Agendas in Civ 6 because they were often overly specific, the AI interactions for it triggered too often causing annoyance, and many created weird interactions.

I've argued this before, but for instance, take Harald: The way the game communicates his agenda is that he likes Civs who also have large navies. And so, in his interactions, he is friendly with players with larger navies and disappointed at players with smaller navies.

This is an example of the agenda being correct, imo, but the way it is communicated being weird. If Harald/Norway get bonuses from exploiting undefended coastal lines, it makes sense that it is coded in such a may that makes him more likely to declare war on Civs with weaker navies.

But, then, why on Earth is he looking all depressed and annoyed at my weak navy? Why is he content when my navy is strong? Shouldn't the interaction have shown him grudgingly conceding that my navy is strong, and shown him content at my weak defenses?

TLDR: Agendas should help direct the AI towards creating relationships which help maximize their leader advantages.
---

Examples of good agendas in Civ VI, which causes interactions that feel right, flavourful and natural:

- Teddy Roosevelt: "Likes peaceful civilizations that have a city on his home continent. Dislikes civilizations starting wars on his continent."
- Saladin: "Dislikes civilizations following other Religions or waging war on followers of his Religion."
- Gilgamesh: "Likes civilizations who are his Declared Friends. Dislikes anyone denouncing or attacking his friends."
- Kristina: "Tries to collect as many Great Works as possible, and likes those who leave them to her. Dislikes civilizations with many Great Works."
- Wu Zetian: "Likes civilizations who pose no threat. Dislikes civilizations with strong military or ones with nearby cities."
- Ba Trieu: "Likes civilizations that have never declared war on Vietnam. She will never forgive those who have, with her opinion decreasing further with each turn the war lasts, and this decreased opinion never recovering."


Examples of good agendas, poorly communicated or implemented:
- Harald;
- Wilhelmina -> The agenda fits well with her bonuses, but it's not well implemented. It makes her more likely to develop enmities with Civs far away who can't trade with her initially, but long range routes are more likely to have higher gold yields. It's also just plain annoying to deal with, since often there's nothing the player can realistically do.


Examples of bad agendas:

- Jayavarman: "Likes civilizations with many Holy Sites and with a high average city Citizen Population. Dislikes civilizations lacking in either of these areas." -> Makes him more likely to declare wars and therefore more likely to conquer cities with no district spots left for Holy Sites, which goes against Jayavarman/Khmer bonuses.
- Cleopatra (Ptolomaic): "Likes civilizations with high Food output. Dislikes those with low Food output." -> Too gamey and encourages Cleo to occupy cities with low food yields, which by extension are likely not adjacent to rivers.
- Hojo Tokimune: "Likes civilizations that have both a strong military and strong Faith or Culture outputs. Dislikes civilizations that are strong in military but weak in Faith or Culture." -> Too specific, imo. Provides flavour but has minor, if any, gameplay implications that align with his bonuses.
- Amanitore: "Tries to keep the maximum number of Districts in each city and likes those that do the same. Dislikes civilizations that do not build as many districts as possible in their cities." -> This is a bit silly. It creates those sort of interactions that feel gamey and unnatural. Like a redditor telling me I'm playing the game incorrectly.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Totally rebuilt diplomacy into a currency based system while then still giving us the same familiar and quite terrible agenda system from 6 on top of it all. All I'm saying is that if Agendas were part of the 1/3rd of things Firaxis decided to throw out, most wouldn't complain.

You know, you don't have to hate everything.

Agendas are dumb but the rest of diplomacy definitely does look like an improvement, at least on paper.

 

[AntSou]

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.

It only feels gamey if the leader abilities feel disconnected from the historical personality, thought. I think the system is at its best when the three are in tandem.

 

[TheGrayFox]

You know, you don't have to hate everything.

Agendas are dumb but the rest of diplomacy definitely does look like an improvement, at least on paper.

I don't hate EVERYTHING

While I dont have particularly strong feelings towards currency based model for basic diplomatic interactions, I actually do like the idea of city states and diplomactic victory requiring an investment and resources besides production.... but these changes definitely get soured when you top them all off with the terrible agenda system from 6

 

[Guandao]

In Civ6....Menelik is like "ALLL the HILLS ARE MINNE!" Pachacuti is "ALLL the MOUNTAINS ARE MINE!" Dido is "ALL the COASTS Are MINE!". Pedro-"ALL THE GREAT PEOPLE ARE MINE!". and so on.
Those were among the dumbest Agendas.

Also Nzinga Mbande's Decolonization Agenda didn't make any sense at all. Wouldn't she hate Civs who didn't start on her continent and try to colonize hers? Instead, she hates me for starting on her home continent. What was Firaxis thinking?

There's always at least one Civ in my games who hates everybody and it often tends to be Alexander....

 

[Thormodr]

It depends on the implementation. For some leaders, it works quite well. For others, not so much.

Getting denounced for not having a navy in my landlocked empire was a bit much.

 

[bbbt]

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?

As I said in the original teaser thread, the fact they are bringing back the least popular thing from 6 (agendas) and the least popular aspect of Humankind (civ switching), is certainly some sort of confidence. They've since sold me (at least) more on the civ switching, so maybe they've put more thought into agendas this time around?

As many have said, the issue with agendas is it seemed to affect dialogue more than gameplay. All civs just seemed to play the same in 6, and the agenda mostly just caused annoying, no interaction pop up comments from the leaders to occasionally interrupt your gameplay. Gilgamesh with his insta-friending on request was the only major exception I can think of where the agenda affect behavior.

So if the agenda comes with more significant gameplay changes, it would work.

Having said that, I personally dislike the direction of agendas, where it make the AI players seems more like obstacles with specific goals to meet rather than competitive players with their own personalities (like the system of 5 attempted to do).

 

[KayAU]

I voted "It depends". Yes, agendas weren't great in Civ 6, but like with so many other things in the game, it wasn't necessarily that it was a bad idea. It was just poorly implemented, and poorly tied together. The leaders in Alpha Centauri had agendas as well, and it worked great.

 

[shaglio]

I voted "It depends". Yes, agendas weren't great in Civ 6, but like with so many other things in the game, it wasn't necessarily that it was a bad idea. It was just poorly implemented, and poorly tied together. The leaders in Alpha Centauri had agendas as well, and it worked great.

Same here. I didn't like how they were implemented in Civ 6*, but if Civ 7 can improve upon them then I'll be happy. We'll see whether that "if" comes to fruition.

*Sorry, Qin, that I built a Wonder. If you don't like it, get off your lazy butt and start building your own.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I for one look forward to Harald telling me how easy to raid the coasts of my inland empire are and Wilhelmina threatening me with her umbrella for not trading with her from the other side of the world for a second game in a row. Agendas were a huge step backward in terms of distinctive AI personalities, and I'm very surprised to see them returning--and returning more or less unmodified from what we can see. Some have said the problem with agendas was implementation, but I disagree. I think the only way to implement agendas in an interesting way would be as a small part of a bigger personality system. Agendas themselves are basically the AI's way of reminding you that they're programs, not people, and that's a problem.

It’s laughably awful. Then there is Elisabeth hating on you for not sending a trader when it’s physically impossible to reach her.

I have a whole list of Stupid Civs I ban when I play. A few of them are Dumb Mechanics; Hammurabi is a prime example, but most of them are there because their agendas are idiotic like Wilhemina.

You know, you don't have to hate everything.

Agendas are dumb but the rest of diplomacy definitely does look like an improvement, at least on paper.

Well the last thing we need is constructive criticism.

Not up on what the Diplomacy mechanics are, but as unpleasant as Yet Another Currency Bucket sounds, just about anything is an improvement over diplomacy in 6

Like why, why the fracking hell can’t I have a Military Alliance with more than one other civ?

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

the last thing we need is constructive criticism.

Not up on what the Diplomacy mechanics are, but as unpleasant as Yet Another Currency Bucket sounds, just about anything is an improvement over diplomacy in 6

Like why, why the fracking hell can’t I have a Military Alliance with more than one other civ?

I didn't see anything constructive.

Agreed that VI is a low bar on diplomacy, it's almost non existent. You should look at what they've shown so far for VII, it looks interesting.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I didn't see anything constructive.

Agreed that VI is a low bar on diplomacy, it's almost non existent. You should look at what they've shown so far for VII, it looks interesting.

Living in Canada, especially the last ten years has made me extremely adverse to any form of shutting down criticism, given how our governments go to for any dissent is shutting down discussion and also you are racist.

I wish I was kidding.

I’ll have to look into that then

So far other than civ switching 7 looks like a massive improvement over6 so I suspect you are correct

 

[kaspergm]

Big "Nay" for me, one of my most hated features of Civ6.

 

[tedhebert]

Living in Canada, especially the last ten years has made me extremely adverse to any form of shutting down criticism, given how our governments go to for any dissent is shutting down discussion and also you are racist.

I wish I was kidding.

I’ll have to look into that then

So far other than civ switching 7 looks like a massive improvement over6 so I suspect you are correct

wow I guess we’re not living in the same Canada at all then

 

[aieeegrunt]

wow I guess we’re not living in the same Canada at all then

If you don’t lickstep with the government’s agendas and narrative it’s very apparent

This is probably OT though so we should drop it.

I hope the new Agenda system is more nuanced like the Leader personalities in IV and earlier