Her agenda seems to be quite accurate to reality as well as she almost immediately waged war against her neighbours after becoming queen and loved fighting. I imagine being her neighbour ingame would be a legitimate nightmare (just like being Alexander’s or Chandragupta’s neighbour in Civ VI!)
But not because they lived on a Plain, because she wanted to consolidate power over the entire Hausa people.
That is true my mistake, I suppose it’s the main way they wanted to give her an agenda that makes her extremely aggressive.
There is one issue with Benin though - the Kingdom of Dahomey would be quite controversial, and I feel like it is relatively unlikely for the series to include another country whose economy was almost entirely based on raiding, hoarding, and selling slaves (the first one is Sparta, and for historical reasons we usually give that a pass).
You just described 90% of the Civ6 agendas.
They mean the Kingdom of Benin, in modern day Nigeria, which is different than the modern-day country of Benin.
They mean the Kingdom of Benin, in modern day Nigeria, which is different than the modern-day country of Benin.
But she is completely okay (no negative modifier) with others when she rules the biggest plain-dessert empire. I think her agenda is designed in exact intention to make her an Antiquity warmonger, and she will be it indeed, but it can be changed after she accomplished her expedition.
And she will have good relationships (for trade) with civs far away (no plains/desert) because they are deep in Tundra or Tropical/Grassland.
Really?
Exactly the opposite. It was the dynamic didn't work at all in civ VI. Dealing with eternal warmongers is easier and feels more pleasant than dealing with paranoid maniacs that change their stance every few turns.
Wrong focus, imho. The problem in civ VI are the (dynamic) thresholds with rather drastic consequences, not the circumstances on some maps. And some agendas were outright silly in their basic design, requiring to not play parts of the game (e.g., don't build wonders or ships) - or hope that the respective AI just sucks/does great (whatever the agenda required). And as it looks, all of this is right back in 7.
Well, after the early-game diplomatic improvement patch, I felt the diplomatic in Civ 6 is quite good to play and interact. I focus on the rivals that I need to care about the relationship with them (for any reasons like they threatens me, have profits for me, or are easy to be a friend), and I can make it to satisfying them in high chance. On the other hand, I nearly ignore the other rivals that they have no profit for me. I let them choose their stance, and it lead me to the unexpected global relationships. The most important factor for the feels-good playthrough was the interrelation between the agenda and the ability. Considering the Leaders I ignored in each game, some of them became a strong enemy by acting efficiently with their well designed agenda, and some did not.
In fairness, there are no Hausa people for her to unite in this game (and even if there were, they would all be under her control to begin with). She has to have something else to be aggressive over.
No evidence of any second agendas (which is good)…they can give AIs behavior and personality without needing the diplo bonuses of agendas.
Benin warriors are uu for Songhai?
