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

[Zaarin]

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

It's probably been a couple years; she wasn't in either of the games I played after the Civ7 announcement.

 

[Navelgazer]

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.

Look, I'm just saying, if there's deception afoot, I prefer it when I'm the one providing the intrigue. I don't think I could be much clearer about that.

 

[Zaarin]

I'm just saying, if there's deception afoot, I prefer it when I'm the one providing the intrigue.

Says one of the nicer world conquerors.

 

[Kjimmet]

Look, I'm just saying, if there's deception afoot, I prefer it when I'm the one providing the intrigue. I don't think I could be much clearer about that.

You know I've heard people say you pay your auxiliaries in patriotism. That and two pennies will buy them a beer.
(I genuinely have no idea what Matthias means by that.)

 

[Zaarin]

You know I've heard people say you pay your auxiliaries in patriotism. That and two pennies will buy them a beer.
(I genuinely have no idea what Matthias means by that.)

That one, I get. He's saying you should levy more city-state units (i.e., pay your mercenaries). Granted, Matthias hates me because I never levy city-states.

 

[Fummy]

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.

In Civ 6 other civs pretty much do start out hating you. Or at least with a negative opinion modifier, its called "first impressions" and I believe it scales with difficulty. So on harder difficulty they just dislike you a little bit, but enough that it makes it hard to get them to start liking you, since they wont accept friendship, open borders etc which would boost their opinion. The way you have to do it is trying to satisfy their agenda or maybe bribing them with gifts or mutually beneficial trade deals. In defence of the agendas, as time goes on agenda matters less since its drowned out in a sea of other positive/negative modifiers, which is a good thing because it means the AIs picky quirk becomes less apparent as time goes on. These things may have mattered more in ancient times but in the modern era they can look past their natural dislike of you since you are their ally, or allied to a friend, or helped them in a war etc.

 

[Uberfrog]

They are. It's not the graphic quality, but the ANIMATION that sets them apart, even to this day. Take this reel of expressions from Willem (which is fairly tame compared to some of the others) and tell me this isn't better than what we're seeing in Civ7 so far.

The way the eyes, mouth and eyebrows move, the body language expression displeasure, distrust or approval. Every model has a distinct look, and a very well designed face that expresses the emotions it needs to express.

Heh, you could have picked a better illustration than Civ 4 Suryavarman, who looks positively ghoulish! Willem is a much better example to be fair.

But for what it’s worth I agree that what gave Civ 4’s leaders character was the animation. There’s a reason I’ve had this avatar so long!

It’s too early to say Civ 7’s leaders don’t have personality though. I think we will grow attached to them in time.

I agree though that I would have enjoyed a more middle-aged depiction of both Hatshepsut and Augustus. It just adds variety to the character models.

 

[Kjimmet]

That one, I get. He's saying you should levy more city-state units (i.e., pay your mercenaries). Granted, Matthias hates me because I never levy city-states.

I do get its about levying city-state units but I'm not sure how exactly.

 

[Zaarin]

I do get its about levying city-state units but I'm not sure how exactly.

He's saying you don't pay your "auxiliaries" (levied units)--"pay them in patriotism."

 

[uppi]

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

Yes, they give leaders explainable reasons why they behave differently to you in different games. A fierce enemy in one game can be a staunch ally in the next. And having an in-game reason is better than a completely random modifier, in my opinion. Even if it sometimes is effectively random whether you trigger the agendas or not.

 

[RedCourtJester]

The leaders did look better in the livestream. A big part of that is this footage isn't thrice compressed b-roll. Additionally, you can see that some textures have been added to the models. The finish on Augustus' breastplate has been added now, for example.

It still squash-n-stretches a lot, though.

I'll probably end up saying it again as more leaders are revealed, but I will dearly miss the VI leader designs. That was a great marriage of stylization and detail (and I think it would have translated better to the Switch style graphics).

 

[Zaarin]

I'll probably end up saying it again as more leaders are revealed, but I will dearly miss the VI leader designs. That was a great marriage of stylization and detail

Same.

 

[Acepox]

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.

Yeah... But not with the Normans!

Let Spain compete with its French and English rivals, for Pete's sake!

 

[AriochIV]

Yeah... But not with the Normans!

Let Spain compete with its French and English rivals, for Pete's sake!

I get where you're coming from name-wise, but... from what they've said, the Normas have a lot of maritime bonuses. So in terms of gameplay, at least, they may be a worthy adversary to Spain's colonial ambitions.

 

[Zaarin]

Not to mention that by the time England and France got their colonial empires underway, Spain was a has-been. Granted, that's precisely because of the English and Dutch, but I still think we'll see Tudor England as DLC eventually.

 

[Thormodr]

Agendas are back. Lol.

Augustus looks like a geek that got picked on in elementary school.

 

[Atlas627]

Yeah, some of Civ6's agendas are just "What might this leader respect in another leader?" without any synergy with gameplay (like the ones you mentioned, but also Kupe, Mansa Musa and others.) Others are pretty self-evident (like Peter or Wilhelmina, but also Pedro II, Saladin, Gilgamesh...) Some seem kind of weird but make sense in gameplay terms (i.e. if you have few ships, you're a better target for the coastal raiding that Harald Hardrada wants to be doing, so he "likes" you if you have a strong navy. If you have no walls, you're a better target for Tamar's faith-farming wars, so she "likes" you if you have "The Georgian Spirit" of wall-building. And weirdest of all, if you have a lot of cavalry, then Genghis wants to battle you so as to steal them for himself, so he "likes" you if you have little to no cavalry.)

Then there are some that seem like they make sense but, AFAICT, don't actually. Montezuma will jump in to shriek at you the instant you build an improvement on any luxury resource he doesn't have yet, but his abilities only trigger off of luxes improved in his own lands. Similarly with Magnificence Catherine, whose agenda wants you to trade with her, but whose ability cares about what she luxuries she has improved in France. I'm sure there are more, but those are the two that always jump out at me.

For Montezuma, he has learned that you have a Luxury he doesn't have, so he wants it. Magnificence Catherine I can't help you with, because it was part of the Leader Pass and had a different set of designers, I believe.

Whats the deal with leaders having start bias when the civs themselves already do? What if they contradict?

Then it will probably pick the Leader, who you will keep for the whole game. So far, the Leader start biases don't seem like they'd conflict with any Civs, actually. We have Navigable Rivers and No Bias so far.

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.

The agendas were an excellent idea that fell flat because there wasn't much to Diplomacy, overall. The Viking leader likes civs that have large navies that would put a stop to their raids because fighting them wouldn't work, so you should befriend them instead. Hatred means a target for war.

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.

This is a fair critique.

Agendas is one of those things were historically-minded-role-playing and power-strategy-gaming butt heads. Hard. The attempt at a compromise leaves everyone unhappy.

Actually, I like both and I loved agendas, though maybe the RP they enable is a little less historical. I view them as opponents in a game, who like me when cooperating with me is better for them and dislike me when fighting is better for them. That's strategy, as well.

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.

Yes, this was the problem. Looks like that was a big focus in Civ7, with the completely new Diplomacy system.

 

[Tanel]

Well I for one am happy that we are not getting Civ 6 leader designs so this is an improvement over that but yeah Civ 5 leaders are definitely the best so far if they don't improve the leaders for 7.

 

[AriochIV]

I still imagine Brian Blessed as Augustus from I, Claudius. So a little bit disappointing to see him looking like a teenager.

I guess the lead character artist must be a fan of HBO's Rome.

 

[Tchuli]

Whats the deal with leaders having start bias when the civs themselves already do? What if they contradict?

In the recent interview that Potato did with Ed and Carl, they talk about this.
Basically, if you sinergize the leader with the civ, the bias is added up and you have an even bigger chance of starting close to those things.

Here's the specific part of the interview:
Ed talking about starting bias