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

[tedhebert]

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

I agree we should drop it… just wanted to put out there that your opinion is not shared by some other Canadians

 

[Thormodr]

Canada is not unique in having terrible government nor unique in having a terrible agenda.

Speaking of that, Canada is so Milquetoast in Civ VI, I have forgotten what their agenda actually is.

 

[pokiehl]

I’m disappointed to see agendas return. I suppose they could be good this time around, but I wish we’d just go back to flavor scores like Civ 5.

 

[Zaarin]

Canada is not unique in having terrible government nor unique in having a terrible agenda.

Speaking of that, Canada is so Milquetoast in Civ VI, I have forgotten what their agenda actually is.

Laurier likes people who participate in Emergencies. Let's steer the discussion away from real world politics please and thank you; Off Topic is available for that.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Please take current events/politics to the OT forum. Thanks.

 

[Thormodr]

Laurier likes people who participate in Emergencies. Let's steer the discussion away from real world politics please and thank you; Off Topic is available for that.

Thanks and noted.

On topic, I hope the Inca's agenda (and Ethiopia)is a little more original than they were in Civ VI

 

[aieeegrunt]

I’m disappointed to see agendas return. I suppose they could be good this time around, but I wish we’d just go back to flavor scores like Civ 5.

Me too. Hopefully they are simply calling it “Agendas” for continuity and it’s something more like what you are suggesting

 

[Arcaian]

I think a lot of agendas would make a lot more sense if there was a dread or confidence track as well as the existing friendly/unfriendly track. Making Harald lose confidence in his ability to fight you the more boats you have makes more narrative sense than having him like you for having more boats, even if they accomplish similar things mechanically (he wants to fight people without boats). It gives slightly more nuance to how the agendas can work, and allows for more realistic geopolitical contexts (civ A dislikes civ B but is afraid of fighting them so doesn't; Civ C likes civ D but is very confident in their ability to fight them and so treats them like a vassal). It'd require some sort of "a bunch of little guys can pool their confidence together against a mutual rival" system, but I think it would be an interesting direction to take it. They clearly haven't though - so given the context, I'm hoping that each leader has more clear personalities outside of their agenda, and the agenda is just one aspect of this all.

 

[rocksinmypath]

I think a lot of agendas would make a lot more sense if there was a dread or confidence track as well as the existing friendly/unfriendly track. Making Harald lose confidence in his ability to fight you the more boats you have makes more narrative sense than having him like you for having more boats, even if they accomplish similar things mechanically (he wants to fight people without boats). It gives slightly more nuance to how the agendas can work, and allows for more realistic geopolitical contexts (civ A dislikes civ B but is afraid of fighting them so doesn't; Civ C likes civ D but is very confident in their ability to fight them and so treats them like a vassal). It'd require some sort of "a bunch of little guys can pool their confidence together against a mutual rival" system, but I think it would be an interesting direction to take it. They clearly haven't though - so given the context, I'm hoping that each leader has more clear personalities outside of their agenda, and the agenda is just one aspect of this all.

Your post helped me understand the problem a little more clearly. The agenda system, or rather, the relationship system, more broadly, is literally one-dimensional. There's only one relationship meter, and that allows you to easily manipulate the AI into liking them by diluting the relationship effects of agendas. "Oh, I don't have enough ships? Here, I'm sending you a delegation and some nice things." That shouldn't stop Harald from intimidating you. In fact, if the threat of an invasion is what makes you treat him well, he should keep sounding the war drums, even if he's satisfied with your gifts.

 

[Krikkit1]

Your post helped me understand the problem a little more clearly. The agenda system, or rather, the relationship system, more broadly, is literally one-dimensional. There's only one relationship meter, and that allows you to easily manipulate the AI into liking them by diluting the relationship effects of agendas. "Oh, I don't have enough ships? Here, I'm sending you a delegation and some nice things." That shouldn't stop Harald from intimidating you. In fact, if the threat of an invasion is what makes you treat him well, he should keep sounding the war drums, even if he's satisfied with your gifts.

That I think is the thing they need. Maybe the right amount of tribute may make to treat you as a trusty vassal…too much and he may feel like he could get more by taking it (same for too little)

 

[ManoftheHour333]

Massive, massive nay. Especially in a single-player focussed game this is just such a stupid move unless they're truly thought everything through...which I doubt will happen. I'm really surprised they're bringing such a rigid feature back considering how much customization is happening with 7.

Honestly at this point I'd just go back to 1-10 levels of certain traits ala Civ V and IV (i.e. Gandhi has a score of 1 in warmongeriness while Genghis has a 10). In a SP match the player gives personality to the characters; it's not for the devs to decide. They're already deciding a lot for us in this iteration and it seems diplomacy will again be a mess. Great.

 

[Siptah]

Massive, massive nay. Especially in a single-player focussed game this is just such a stupid move unless they're truly thought everything through...which I doubt will happen. I'm really surprised they're bringing such a rigid feature back considering how much customization is happening with 7.

Honestly at this point I'd just go back to 1-10 levels of certain traits ala Civ V and IV (i.e. Gandhi has a score of 1 in warmongeriness while Genghis has a 10). In a SP match the player gives personality to the characters; it's not for the devs to decide. They're already deciding a lot for us in this iteration and it seems diplomacy will again be a mess. Great.

I don‘t understand. I don‘t like the agendas. But why is a predefined static scale value less dev-decided than a dynamical system that reacts of players‘ actions?

 

[Lord Lakely]

I voted Nah. It's a bit harsh, but I stand by it. We don't have enough information on how well it'll work out with Civ7's enrichened diplomacy, but the binary agenda's were a large part of why Civ 6's Dip felt like playing a bunch of toddlers, and not world leaders. The Mortal Kombat diplomacy i've seen so far has not pacified my anxieties. Sceptical until proven wrong.

 

[Zaarin]

Civ 6's Dip felt like playing a bunch of toddlers

So one could say it's immersive.

 

[BackseatTyrant]

So one could say it's immersive.

Makes me wonder how much of our frustrations with the mechanic come from the general expectations of IRL world leaders supposedly being, not just intelligent and dignified people, but exceptionally so. And I'm not going to lie, I think the Civilization series has negatively contributed to this false narrative since literally the first installation ("...now, all that is required, is a great leader to unite the quarrelling tribes, to harness the power of the lands, to build an empire that will stand the test of time: a civilization!") so it's really sad to see the upcoming game pretty much double down on the idea that you're playing as a country's head of state, rather than its people. Heck, I've suggested a few times of getting rid of leaderheads altogether, simply because every single historical figure was at best a flawed human being

 

[chaosprophet]

Makes me wonder how much of our frustrations with the mechanic come from the general expectations of IRL world leaders supposedly being, not just intelligent and dignified people, but exceptionally so. And I'm not going to lie, I think the Civilization series has negatively contributed to this false narrative since literally the first installation ("...now, all that is required, is a great leader to unite the quarrelling tribes, to harness the power of the lands, to build an empire that will stand the test of time: a civilization!") so it's really sad to see the upcoming game pretty much double down on the idea that you're playing as a country's head of state, rather than its people. Heck, I've suggested a few times of getting rid of leaderheads altogether, simply because every single historical figure was at best a flawed human being

While maybe not necessarily since the very start of the series, I think the main reason leaders stayed as a strong thing in the series is to give a face to the AI. Humans in general tend to act different to just a name/color than something that is personified. So I think leaders main reason to exist is to give a face to your AI opponents in the game more than to be something to pick yourself (but as a balance issue, you also pick one to have a leader bonus from the same pool of options). Which may be a reason why they decided to switch the civ but keep the leaders, so the face of each AI you're facing during the whole game stays the same.

 

[Zaarin]

Makes me wonder how much of our frustrations with the mechanic come from the general expectations of IRL world leaders supposedly being, not just intelligent and dignified people, but exceptionally so. And I'm not going to lie, I think the Civilization series has negatively contributed to this false narrative since literally the first installation ("...now, all that is required, is a great leader to unite the quarrelling tribes, to harness the power of the lands, to build an empire that will stand the test of time: a civilization!") so it's really sad to see the upcoming game pretty much double down on the idea that you're playing as a country's head of state, rather than its people. Heck, I've suggested a few times of getting rid of leaderheads altogether, simply because every single historical figure was at best a flawed human being

I'd be very opposed to getting rid of leaders. I've never seen myself as "playing as" a leader, and the other leaders are the people (not the leaders) I'm playing against--it humanizes the game. If I wanted to play against a faceless mass I'd go play Humankind.

 

[BackseatTyrant]

I'd be very opposed to getting rid of leaders. I've never seen myself as "playing as" a leader, and the other leaders are the people (not the leaders) I'm playing against--it humanizes the game. If I wanted to play against a faceless mass I'd go play Humankind.

Don't you mean "...but the other leaders are the people I'm playing against"?

Also, the game with faceless masses you're thinking of is Millenia

 

[Zaarin]

Don't you mean "...but the other leaders are the people I'm playing against"?

Also, the game with faceless masses you're thinking of is Millenia

You're reminding me of my college professor who told me I meant "thus" not "therefore" on a paper. (He's the same professor who took his lecture notes from SparkNotes verbatim.)

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Don't you mean "...but the other leaders are the people I'm playing against"?

Also, the game with faceless masses you're thinking of is Millenia

Actually, Millenia, Humankind, and from what I've seen, the 48-hours-from-Release ARA all have 'faceless masses' to some extent:
Millenia has faceless Everything, including your Civ;
Humankind has faceless everything but your Leader, and that is a nameless Avatar
ARA appears to have named 'Leaders' who look even blander than Civ VII's, and no other named people that I've seen (only in previous Pre-Release versions, to be sure: they might completely surprise me with the Release version on Tuesday).

Civ having staked out the Personality High Ground in previous versions has always given us far more individuality of people in the game: Great People, named 'Tribal' barbarians (in previous Civs and Civ VI's Barbarian Clans mode), Governors, as well as the Leaders.

This, IMHO, has been one of the strengths of the franchise: I just hope they aren't backing away from it in Civ VII with their (so far) nameless Army Commanders and other 'generic' civilian units.