Pachacuti: Be content with the lowlands--the mountains are mine.
Menelik: Be content with the lowlands--the hills are mine.
Dihya: Be content with the lowlands--the mountains and the hills are mine.
You know the more I think about it Wilhelmina with a lowlands agenda would have made her at least more tolerable than her hating you for not sending a trade route to her.
Pachacuti: Be content with the lowlands--the mountains are mine.
Menelik: Be content with the lowlands--the hills are mine.
Dihya: Be content with the lowlands--the mountains and the hills are mine.
Civ VI leader agendas—one-sided and unsophisticated since the dawn of Civ VI. I hope in the future leaders won’t have a singular agenda but rather more subtle flavorings of things they prefer.
Civ VI leader agendas—one-sided and unsophisticated since the dawn of Civ VI. I hope in the future leaders won’t have a singular agenda but rather more subtle flavorings of things they prefer.
They're really phoning in some of the stuff for NFP in particular, though. I mean, Menelik II hates you for settling hills? Really? At least it made some level of sense for Pachacuti. It just makes Menelik seem petty...
They're really phoning in some of the stuff for NFP in particular, though. I mean, Menelik II hates you for settling hills? Really? At least it made some level of sense for Pachacuti. It just makes Menelik seem petty...
Indeed, Pacachuti warred on neighboring polities in mountains so there’s *some* justification there. Menelik would have made more sense with John Curtin’s agenda, but as Australia came first, the Ethiopians got stuck with an unoriginal terrain-based objection. Maybe in the future we will get a leader who hates you if you settle cities near desert or tundra. Heh.
Indeed, Pacachuti warred on neighboring polities in mountains so there’s *some* justification there. Menelik would have made more sense with John Curtin’s agenda, but as Australia came first, the Ethiopians got stuck with an unoriginal terrain-based objection. Maybe in the future we will get a leader who hates you if you settle cities near desert or tundra. Heh.
I don't particularly mind the agenda system but I do wish some agendas were better like Menelik. But considering three of his abilities revolve around hill tiles it makes sense why they gave him that from a gameplay perspective.
I don't even understand the agendas. I don't even know why they are included with the leaders. However, getting denounced by having a different form of government (like Democracy, Fascism or Communism) is easier to understand.
I don't think the idea (of agendas) was bad, but the implementation certainly was. It's especially fun when you get a schizophrenic leader, like Cleopatra getting the Paranoid hidden agenda or Kupe getting the Exploitive hidden agenda or Frederick getting the City-State Protector hidden agenda (I've seen all three). "I love your big army. By the way, I hate your big army."
But overall, agendas feel like less personality and more monodimensional than Civ5's leader personalities.
I don't particularly mind the agenda system but I do wish some agendas were better like Menelik. But considering three of his abilities revolve around hill tiles it makes sense why they gave him that from a gameplay perspective.
i wish agendas worked as 3 focuses, 3 anti-focuses + 2 dislike and like factors. for each leader which are kinda unique from their abilities and win conditions.
So for example, Menelik could have the following 3 focuses: building holy sites, opposing offensive wars on civs, and taking over city states (to replicate his unification of ethiopia) Then he could stray away from declaring war on civs, building harbors, and staying unprotected. His 2 likes could be civs which trade and civs which focus on building faith, and 2 dislikes be against invaders and inquisitors.
Likewise, take Dido: she could have focuses towards building a navy, building harbors, and building settlers, while having anti-focuses against building commercial hubs, staying without diplomatic relations (to reflect focus on writing) and declaring surprise war (to reflect her escape from tyre). Her two like factors could be good scientific advancement and lots of trade, while her dislikes could be people hogging coastlines and people who don’t send diplomatic visitors/embassies
I don't think the idea (of agendas) was bad, but the implementation certainly was. It's especially fun when you get a schizophrenic leader, like Cleopatra getting the Paranoid hidden agenda or Kupe getting the Exploitive hidden agenda or Frederick getting the City-State Protector hidden agenda (I've seen all three). "I love your big army. By the way, I hate your big army."
Civ VI leader agendas—one-sided and unsophisticated since the dawn of Civ VI. I hope in the future leaders won’t have a singular agenda but rather more subtle flavorings of things they prefer.
The cruel irony is that agenda's don't matter anymore. If a friend's neg agenda triggers they will remain friendly. If an enemy's positive agenda triggers, they will find other reasons to hate you regardless.
I see what you're saying about the negatives in agendas and positives in them. They will be more likely to denounce you if you fall to the negative agenda of a leader and the opposite if you pass their positive agenda. They will still find some way to make a surprise war or even a denouncement. Even being in a joint war with a leader against other civilizations in the ancient or classic era which is really positive, won't stop that leader from making a surprise war in the future.
That happened to me when I was Suleiman while Timur was my ally and we took out Gorgo. It was all good until the future she makes a surprise war against me and I even asked for peace and she didn't want to but she was really close to me. Even the other civilizations which knew I had warmonger penalties and denounced me on the same continent for what happened, gave me peace after they had made a surprise war against me too. I think they made peace because we were far away from each other and couldn't send in any troops to conquer faraway cities because of loyalty issues.
Anyway, I understand the agenda now since its a little obvious that a positive agenda will make that civilization like you more and vice versa with the civilization negative agenda liking you less.
I see what you're saying about the negatives in agendas and positives in them. They will be more likely to denounce you if you fall to the negative agenda of a leader and the opposite if you pass their positive agenda. They will still find some way to make a surprise war or even a denouncement. Even being in a joint war with a leader against other civilizations in the ancient or classic era which is really positive, won't stop that leader from making a surprise war in the future.
That happened to me when I was Suleiman while Timur was my ally and we took out Gorgo. It was all good until the future she makes a surprise war against me and I even asked for peace and she didn't want to but she was really close to me. Even the other civilizations which knew I had warmonger penalties and denounced me on the same continent for what happened, gave me peace after they had made a surprise war against me too. I think they made peace because we were far away from each other and couldn't send in any troops to conquer faraway cities because of loyalty issues.
Anyway, I understand the agenda now since its a little obvious that a positive agenda will make that civilization like you more and vice versa with the civilization negative agenda liking you less.
i honeslty dislike how they got rid of those old behavior modifiers, where a civ was x/x to do something. They added a lot more flavor to civs and their personalities, and could’ve only perhaps benefitted from having opinions on others based on whether their priorities were the same.
oman, yemen and some type of recognition of ming china as well. Swahili was mentioned, as was Chola, but the Shona and Muisca as well, potentially the Timurids, Afghans/Pashtuns and Ghaznavids could have trade focuses in addition to war
oman, yemen and some type of recognition of ming china as well. Swahili was mentioned, as was Chola, but the Shona and Muisca as well, potentially the Timurids, Afghans/Pashtuns and Ghaznavids could have trade focuses in addition to war
The cruel irony is that agenda's don't matter anymore. If a friend's neg agenda triggers they will remain friendly. If an enemy's positive agenda triggers, they will find other reasons to hate you regardless.
I never really cared about the agenda of other leaders, I always do what I want. I also never cared if any leader is angry with me, except if he/she is a warmonger who is right next to me (Montezuma, I'm looking at you ).
i honeslty dislike how they got rid of those old behavior modifiers, where a civ was x/x to do something. They added a lot more flavor to civs and their personalities, and could’ve only perhaps benefitted from having opinions on others based on whether their priorities were the same.
Yeah, they have gone a far way with the way the civ leaders treat the rest of the civilizations.
I now use wiki and the civilopedia to look up the agendas since there's so many of them to memorize.
The Swahili is the african civ I’d like to see the most, besides perhaps the Shona. Sea trade is really underemphasized, and the Swahili and Chola would both make it more fun and useful. I think Swahili (and tamil) might be one of the most spoken languages unrepresented in the game too.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
If a friend's neg agenda triggers they will remain friendly. If an enemy's positive agenda triggers, they will find other reasons to hate you regardless. 
