pre-release info Augustus (Imperium Maius) - Leader Discussion

[Zaarin]

It could simply be a relationship modifier, or it could modify behavior of the leader

The Agenda specifically mentions relationship modifier. Hypothetically, agendas were supposed to modify behavior in Civ6, but the modification was not pronounced. Civs would use their special abilities, but their behavior felt much less unique than in Civ5.

 

[stealth_nsk]

The Agenda specifically mentions relationship modifier. Hypothetically, agendas were supposed to modify behavior in Civ6, but the modification was not pronounced. Civs would use their special abilities, but their behavior felt much less unique than in Civ5.

Ok, missed it. In this case it probably will be much more visible and effective.

 

[OzzyKP]

I think an agenda system with weak modifiers on top of a more complex personality system like Civ5's would be fine; as is, it makes leaders too one-note and neurotic. Plus, some are just...extremely dubious, like Menelik shrieking about his hills or Wilhelmina bonking you with her umbrella for not trading with her from the opposite side of the map. The system needs more nuance at the very least.

Those make sense to me. If a Civ has a combat bonus in hills it would make sense for them to want to go to war with opponents that have hills. Wilhelmina makes sense too. Civs that trade with her should be her friends, she benefits from them. She doesn't benefit from civs that don't trade with her. Invading and taking their resources is a sensible course of action. As for being on the other side of the map.... surely the Dutch would never send an army to a far away land to invade (maybe some islands somewhere that happen to have valuable spices...).

Most of the complaints I've seen about agendas are really thinking of them in terms of interpersonal relationships. "Oh no, X leader doesn't like me because I have hills. What kind of weird sociopath would care about whether or not another land has hills?" They are always meant to be a way to direct dumb AIs toward friends and enemies based purely on gameplay considerations. It isn't about whether they like you or not, it is about helping them pick advantageous targets.

 

[Zaarin]

Most of the complaints I've seen about agendas are really thinking of them in terms of interpersonal relationships.

Yes, because to me that's what other civs and more importantly their leaders are there for. To form interpersonal relationships.

 

[Uberfrog]

It feels like leader first looks are a little less interesting than the Civ 6 civ ones, as they have less to reveal.

We knew most of these things about Augustus anyway, and the agenda (not least the Aurelian-inspired name) is a little puzzling. Do they mean he likes civs with more cities than towns? Otherwise it feels quite odd, as surely all cities must first have been towns…

Exploration are Spain is not a surprise. How long until we reveal the Aztecs and Incas?

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

IMO every civ should start out hating one another; if you want good relations then you just offer a lot of concessions to get that status up. Just like with city states.

I was not a fan of agendas in Civ 6 and I'm not happy to see them return.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Exploration are Spain is not a surprise.

It's a bit of a surprise to me, for a couple of reasons:

1. they could just have easily used an earlier Iberian kingdom such as Castille or Aragon, which might have fit better as contemporaries to the Normans

2. I thought they might try to avoid using the names of current nation states for pre-modern civilizations (similar reason I was surprised that Greece is not Ancient Greece or Athens or Sparta or Thebes, etc, although at least there's a huge historical break between ancient Greece and modern Greece; there's no such big break between post-Reconquista Spain and modern nation-state Spain).

 

[Xandinho]

It feels like leader first looks are a little less interesting than the Civ 6 civ ones, as they have less to reveal.

Discovering all the elements of a civilization was way more fun than just leader abilities.

-

And Spain in the Age of Exploration is what makes sense. I know some people were expecting Castile, and it would be fun to have it, but let's face it, if there's one civ that definitely belongs in an Age called exploration, it's Spain, especially considering that Aztecs, Incas, and someday Portugal will be there too.

 

[AriochIV]

I really appreciate that the naval units have crewmembers on board. It's a great detail that is usually missing... it's cool that computing has risen to the level where things like that can be included.

Discovering all the elements of a civilization was way more fun than just leader abilities.

Yeah, the meat of the details are not with the leader, so leader first looks feel a little hollow.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

God, that Latin is just music to my ears

Also, artstyle quibbles aside, this video really proved that their animators are still doing excellent work. I know many of us disapprove of side-on diplomacy screen, but if the animations and voice acting are as good as this then it almost makes it look… dare I say… quite natural?

Edit: those subtitles seem spot-on so far! Civ has had a problem with inaccurate subtitles in the past- let’s keep an eye out to see if they stay word-for-word accurate.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

It's a bit of a surprise to me, for a couple of reasons:

1. they could just have easily used an earlier Iberian kingdom such as Castille or Aragon, which might have fit better as contemporaries to the Normans

2. I thought they might try to avoid using the names of current nation states for pre-modern civilizations (similar reason I was surprised that Greece is not Ancient Greece or Athens or Sparta or Thebes, etc, although at least there's a huge historical break between ancient Greece and modern Greece; there's no such big break between post-Reconquista Spain and modern nation-state Spain).

It's not a surprise to me considering we saw troops flying the Spanish Empire's flag (Cross of Burgandy) fighting Norman troops in the reveal trailer.

 

[Takfloyd]

Did anyone think agendas in Civ VI were anything other than immersion-breaking hogwash?

The concept is great - adding unique preferences and quirks to the AI based on their historical self, but most agendas were ridiculous arbitrary nonsense instead of being agendas that make any kind of realistic sense, and that seems to continue here. Are we really stuck with this for another decade? Leaders showing up to tell you how mad they are that you don't have enough parrots in your empire?

Often the agendas were even the polar opposite of what would make sense. A viking leader should naturally dislike civs that have large navies that would put a stop to their raids, but instead, Harald hated civs that DIDN'T have a navy. What kind of logic is that?

Why can't the agendas just be plausible? Augustus is known for ushering in the Pax Romana, so why not have him dislike empires that are at war? Yes, it's simple, but it also, you know, makes sense.

 

[Zaarin]

A viking leader should naturally dislike civs that have large navies that would put a stop to their raids, but instead, Harald hated civs that DIDN'T have a navy. What kind of logic is that?

It encourages AI Harald to declare war and pillage undefended coastlines. It's pure gameplay, unfortunately.

 

[Fummy]

Didn't they say that the leaders have their own ability tree you progress down? I guess this is the same for every leader, so you sort of customise your leader as you play. Saying nothing of the suspected meta-progression.

 

[AriochIV]

It encourages AI Harald to declare war and pillage undefended coastlines. It's pure gameplay, unfortunately.

If it were just impetus for the AI behavior, that would be fine. It's when the AI periodically calls you up on the phone and says, "Hey -- you have slightly less <insert condition here> than I do" that's immersion-breaking.

Especially since some of the quotes are very cryptic. To this day there are still some cases where I have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.

 

[Zaarin]

If it were just impetus for the AI behavior, that would be fine. It's when the AI periodically calls you up on the phone and says, "Hey -- you have slightly less <insert condition here> than I do" that's immersion-breaking.

Especially since some of the quotes are very cryptic. To this day there are still some cases where I have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.

I kind of like the scenes themselves insofar as I enjoy more leader interactions, but some of them are strange. I think Gandhi is unique in having a "you haven't actually transgressed anything, I just want to remind you I'm Nuclear Gandhi" message with the whole "no shame in deterrence" speech.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

It encourages AI Harald to declare war and pillage undefended coastlines. It's pure gameplay, unfortunately.

There a subtlety lost in the "hate" = "will attack you" link that caused much of the disconnection. If instead of angry Harald showing up to denounce you, you got a message that Harald is getting more likely to attack you because he sees you as weak, that might have made the agenda feel more normal. And it's possible that with advisors sending you messages, maybe we get a bit more of that in Civ 7. Also maybe not, as agenda penalties / bonuses seems to be related to relationships rather than actionable items. Ideally, a Civ could hate and fear you, take diplomatic actions against you, but avoid war.

 

[AriochIV]

There a subtlety lost in the "hate" = "will attack you" link that caused much of the disconnection. If instead of angry Harald showing up to denounce you, you got a message that Harald is getting more likely to attack you because he sees you as weak, that might have made the agenda feel more normal. And it's possible that with advisors sending you messages, maybe we get a bit more of that in Civ 7. Also maybe not, as agenda penalties / bonuses seems to be related to relationships rather than actionable items. Ideally, a Civ could hate and fear you, take diplomatic actions against you, but avoid war.

I think the underlying problem in Civ6 is that the only meaningful interactions with other civs is either when they're allied with you or attacking you, so everything else is just noise.

Hopefully there is more meaningful nuance to relationships this time around.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Chalk me up as another who is not so happy to see Agendas back. I don't mind the idea in principle, but I thought the implementation in VI was pretty poor.

Otherwise, enjoyed the video, and looking forward to learning more about Spain.

 

[Jkchart]

I think an agenda system with weak modifiers on top of a more complex personality system like Civ5's would be fine; as is, it makes leaders too one-note and neurotic. Plus, some are just...extremely dubious, like Menelik shrieking about his hills or Wilhelmina bonking you with her umbrella for not trading with her from the opposite side of the map. The system needs more nuance at the very least.

Speaking of Wilhelmina, when is the last time you sent her a trade route?????