Disappointed with Cyrus's agenda?

[MantaRevan]

Cyrus gets the "Opportunistic" agenda, meaning that he favors civs that declare surprise wars, and dislikes civs that don't.

To me this just seems like a copy-paste of his leader ability. We already have a number of civs that have pro-war agendas (Gorgo, Alexander, Barbarossa) and Opportunistic doesn't seem to do much to distinguish itself.

Additionally, the agenda seems impractical to fulfill. The player is unlikely to use surprise wars after the early game, as doing so will piss everyone besides Cyrus off. You may only use 1 or 2 surprise wars, and there's a good chance that Cyrus will either be the target of them, or you won't have met him yet to benefit. Playing along with his agenda will mean alienating pretty much everyone else.

It seems to me like there could be better dimensions of his character to emphasize, too. His relative respect for the customs of those he conquered and the Cyrus Cylinder would make for much better jumping-off points for his agenda.

How do you guys feel about the agendas of the new leaders?

 

[Morningcalm]

Most of the agendas in this game are quite weirdly one-sided, sadly. There are no subtle gradations where Cyrus can respect a player who doesn't declare a surprise war (and this is weird since he was a humanitarian warrior in real life; surely he would be happy to accept the friendship of a weaker, more peaceful civ in real life, whether before or after he conquered said peaceful civ). The secondary agendas are meant to provide some sort of backup agenda to help shade things out a bit, but in practice the diplomacy modifiers for agendas feel arbitrary (in part because the warmonger penalties can still get ridiculously high, like -107, thus annulling any attempt you might make to become friends with another civ).

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Most agendas are designed to either help the AI utilize the civ's features or to give historical flavor. However, a few are "I like you if you are like me". Cyrus and Alexander fall in that camp with Trajan, Jadwiga, CdM, Harald, Gandhi, Gorgo, and Hojo.

 

[Jaybe]

Civ agendas are A factor, but there are many others which contribute to relationships. To me, it's a non-issue because of all the other events that will affect the game.

 

[Siptah]

I still think that the first expansion will work on diplomacy and add mechanics here. It seems plausible that some of the agendas (or even the whole system) gets an overhaul as well. It's good that every leader has one thing according which he also plays in my opinion. Some are just hard to fulfill, or no fun to fulfill. Some others are impossible (like Cleo being paranoid as hidden agenda). So I really believe that things will change in a year here. Has anyone played a whole game against Cyrus yet and can state if he indeed does declare lots of surprise wars?

 

[Morningcalm]

Something to make the agendas more dynamic and less "all or nothing" would definitely help. There's only an approval/disapproval agenda reaction in the game for each leader right now (because black and white is as subtle as it gets for them really), and they trigger at the most odd times. I will also point out that agenda approval and disapproval reactions were very confusing when Civ VI was first released, because the agenda reaction text didn't tell you the leaders were reacting based on their agenda in the actual approval/disapproval cinematic.

 

[altayrneto]

I agree with OP, the agenda is kind of disappointing... Cyrus in this game was retracted too much as a untrustworthy person, and who likes other untrustworthy people... Game mechanics could be an explanation, but even so, the agenda (and the leader concept itself) could be better...

I still think that the first expansion will work on diplomacy and add mechanics here. It seems plausible that some of the agendas (or even the whole system) gets an overhaul as well.

That would be a good idea, but there's a problem: they will need to call the voice actor again (and pay again) to record other lines for the agenda approval and disapproval...

 

[MooFreaky]

If just find it hilarious from a historical standpoint. Cyrus was an accomplished warrior, but surprise wars weren't his thing. He fought against several rival Empires/Nations...

The Medes- Attacked Cyrus (an underling of the Medes) to claim direct control of his territory. Didn't work out well for them.
The Lydians- Attacked Cyrus and got stomped
Asia Minor- A former Lydian who was supposed to be friends with Cyrus stole a bunch of money and hired mercenaries, using Asia Minor as a base and attacking Cyrus. Got beaten.
Neo-Babylonian- Conquered surrounding states and ended up at war with Cyrus. While we don't know the exact cause, it appears Cyrus tried extensive use of diplomacy to end the conflict but was rebuffed. So he conquered them.

So yeah... I can totally see how surprise attacks ended up as his thing...

 

[Gnarv]

The question is, if you declare a surprise war on Cyrus, will he like or dislike you afterwards when peace has been declared?

I find most AI agendas to be too rigid. Why would Hardrada hate for not having a navy if you're completely land-locked? Why would Trajan hate you even though only a few turns have passed and you haven't even been able to construct your first settler? I wonder if Cyrus is going to denounced you as well early in the game because you haven't had any opportunity to declare a surprise war on anybody.

I think AI agendas should be made more flexible. Hardrada should only hate you if you actually have coastal cities (or cities with a harbor district) but no real navy. And Trajan should at least give you 50 turns or so till he denounces you for having a smaller empire than him.

 

[MooFreaky]

The question is, if you declare a surprise war on Cyrus, will he like or dislike you afterwards when peace has been declared?

I find most AI agendas to be too rigid. Why would Hardrada hate for not having a navy if you're completely land-locked? Why would Trajan hate you even though only a few turns have passed and you haven't even been able to construct your first settler? I wonder if Cyrus is going to denounced you as well early in the game because you haven't had any opportunity to declare a surprise war on anybody.

I think AI agendas should be made more flexible. Hardrada should only hate you if you actually have coastal cities (or cities with a harbor district) but no real navy. And Trajan should at least give you 50 turns or so till he denounces you for having a smaller empire than him.

And it should be scaling too. If you have the second biggest navy you get less dislike than having THE smallest. Similarly if Trajan should scale depending on how much bigger than you he is.

 

[Kyro]

Civ 6's agendas are mostly imbalanced, inpractical to fufill and illogical. I'm not surprised that Cyrus is just another leader you can't possibly with friends with because of thoughtless agendas.

Just to name a few.

Rome hates anyone who has a smaller empire. ie anyone who doesn't compete with the the land he so desires.

Scythia hates you for declaring a surprise war against City states when there's no other way to do so.

Gandhi is both happy and angry that you built nukes.

Arabia hates you for founding a Religion.

Germany hates you for befriending City States.

England hates you for being on a different continent.

The list of stupid agendas goes on and on.

 

[Eva-kun]

Oddly, I only declared one surprise war at the start of the game and receive a positive modifier with him that didn't disappear.

 

[Victoria]

I always play agenda's, pretty important early game and this is exactly where this one comes in.
It is also of note that agenda's degrade over time and normally end up at about +5 so get early agendas against civs you want to be friends with early
Opposrtunistic is exactly that and great. If he is next to me I will try and find someone else to suprise to make my start game a little safer.

I do not for a minute think that normal politics and lack of space are tied. If Cyrus is short on space he will be the last surprise.

 

[Victoria]

These may be stupid out of game but as in-game mechanics they are mostly great IMO but yes some stupidity

Rome hates anyone who has a smaller empire. ie anyone who doesn't compete with the the land he so desires. - Your worst enemy early, your best friend later. No issue , great mechanic

Scythia hates you for declaring a surprise war against City states when there's no other way to do so. - Agreed... stoopid.. but useful if you do not attack city states... But I am confused. Her Agenda is about friends, not city states. Maybe they changed it to this but last 2 times I played against her, its about liking her - backstab averse

Gandhi is both happy and angry that you built nukes. - Gandhi is the clown, lets have a joint war?... you will be +6 for fighting with me but I will give you -8 for warmongering.. The 6 will degrade and the 8 will not. I'm sure this is a joke. If you ever go to war with Ganhi you deserve to be beaten on cheftain. Ghandi is a peace mans dream and an early warmongers scorpion with those Varu. I think overall he adds some great variety and fun at the expense of the Indians who must get tired of it.

Arabia hates you for founding a Religion.- I have no issue with this in or out of the game. If I am going RV I would expect him to hate me.

Germany hates you for befriending City States.- Wierd agenda agreed. It does however make him an early lover of you.

England hates you for being on a different continent. - Ahh but she is your local lover. It is the early game that is hard and if she is next to you life could be much worse.

 

[agonistes]

These may be stupid out of game but as in-game mechanics they are mostly great IMO but yes some stupidity

Rome hates anyone who has a smaller empire. ie anyone who doesn't compete with the the land he so desires. - Your worst enemy early, your best friend later. No issue , great mechanic

Scythia hates you for declaring a surprise war against City states when there's no other way to do so. - Agreed... stoopid.. but useful if you do not attack city states... But I am confused. Her Agenda is about friends, not city states. Maybe they changed it to this but last 2 times I played against her, its about liking her - backstab averse

Gandhi is both happy and angry that you built nukes. - Gandhi is the clown, lets have a joint war?... you will be +6 for fighting with me but I will give you -8 for warmongering.. The 6 will degrade and the 8 will not. I'm sure this is a joke. If you ever go to war with Ganhi you deserve to be beaten on cheftain. Ghandi is a peace mans dream and an early warmongers scorpion with those Varu. I think overall he adds some great variety and fun at the expense of the Indians who must get tired of it.

Arabia hates you for founding a Religion.- I have no issue with this in or out of the game. If I am going RV I would expect him to hate me.

Germany hates you for befriending City States.- Wierd agenda agreed. It does however make him an early lover of you.

England hates you for being on a different continent. - Ahh but she is your local lover. It is the early game that is hard and if she is next to you life could be much worse.

Agree. Even with 2 agendas working against you, you can be friends with anyone - although I have never been friendly with Kongo (but never sent him my religion either).

One trick is conquering a city, have it ceded to you, get some some productivity out of it ( chopping archers early, rushing settlers later, or even capping out districts with a 'bad' one), then gifting it.

Gifting it back will usually prevent any further dows, or gifting it to someone else to make the 3rd party happy.

In games where the same party dows on me repeatedly, and I have no interest in conquering them, gifting a ceded city back after some time wirks wonders.

Greece is up there with Kongo and China as hard to be friendly with, at least for me. But I often border Greece.

 

[King Jason]

Civ 6's agendas are mostly imbalanced, inpractical to fufill and illogical.
Just to name a few.

Rome hates anyone who has a smaller empire. ie anyone who doesn't compete with the the land he so desires.

Scythia hates you for declaring a surprise war against City states when there's no other way to do so.

Gandhi is both happy and angry that you built nukes.

Arabia hates you for founding a Religion.

Germany hates you for befriending City States.

England hates you for being on a different continent.

The list of stupid agendas goes on and on.

Most aren't impractical for you to fulfill. Germany, Arabia, and Scythia are all easy to abide by and don't necessarily hinder the player in any real way. I mean if Scytha is in the game, simply don't DoW on anyone by suprise (don't DoW city states). If Germany is in the game, conquer city states instead of investing in them if you're so concerned with him liking you. England is left much to chance but is easy to satisfy depending on where they are on the map. As for the list going on; China and Egypt are super easy. The only ones that are actually tricky and require effort with a bit of diplomatic cost are the ones that involve warfare.

The main point of agendas is to bring people into conflict. Many of them require the player to augment their playstyle if they want to maintain a lasting friendship and eventual ally. I think this is a worthy exchange. Otherwise it'd probably be too easy to manipulate everybody.

Many people often complain that it's hard to satisfy everyone's agenda and have more than 1 or 2 friends in any given game. I'm pretty sure that that is exactly the point.

 

[Kyro]

@King Jason

Not getting any Suzerain bonuses, not founding a Religion, not using the element of surprise in war are not impractical to fufill?

That's just absurd. Giving up Religion which is essentially a Victory condition along with its powerful advantages just to be friends with Arabia is the very definition of impractical. So is giving up 10 Trade Routes/ +40% culture/Picking Apostle Promotions etc. because you can't be Suzerain of City States.

The point is the price for meeting agendas is simply not worth any benefit of befriending the AI.

Also to note is that many of these Agendas are simply beyond the player's control. I can't simply not found a Religion for example, and I can't simply relocate my continent.

Yes it doesn't take much thought to realise that all these stupid agendas are there precisely so that there can be more conflicts/wars and that is exactly what I am against; making Civ 6 pro-war and anti-peace.

The way I play now I never give up advantages in game just to befriend the AI simply because there's no real advantage in doing so that is worth the price.

 

[Felis Renidens]

I think "impossible" agendas are usually those that are against preferred play style. For example - I like building wonders and hate building navy. China and Norway won't like me. OK. I don't mind. If I wanted to get along with them I would have played to their agenda. So - not really impossible just not something that I'll do.

 

[Kyro]

The sad thing is that the default state of Diplomacy is hate rather than neutral unless you are lucky or you cut off a leg to meet their agendas. If you're up against AI with absurd agendas you can forget about practical friendly relations.

It makes the default state of the game full of conflict and constant denounciations that's just very annoying to peaceful players.

 

[agonistes]

@King Jason

Not getting any Suzerain bonuses, not founding a Religion, not using the element of surprise in war are not impractical to fufill?

That's just absurd. Giving up Religion which is essentially a Victory condition along with its powerful advantages just to be friends with Arabia is the very definition of impractical. So is giving up 10 Trade Routes/ +40% culture/Picking Apostle Promotions etc. because you can't be Suzerain of City States.

The point is the price for meeting agendas is simply not worth any benefit of befriending the AI.

Also to note is that many of these Agendas are simply beyond the player's control. I can't simply not found a Religion for example, and I can't simply relocate my continent.

Yes it doesn't take much thought to realise that all these stupid agendas are there precisely so that there can be more conflicts/wars and that is exactly what I am against; making Civ 6 pro-war and anti-peace.

The way I play now I never give up advantages in game just to befriend the AI simply because there's no real advantage in doing so that is worth the price.

You don't bend to the agendas, you just get more positives than negatives.