Do you like any AI leader?

[SlySlySly]

Barbarossa on no city states is nice

 

[Leyrann]

I don't even do that and he still hates me.

I have noticed, though, that the "random" agendas aren't very random. Tomyris has had the Idealogue agenda in every game I've encountered her in; Teddy usually has Environmentalist; Pedro and Harald both frequently have Industrialist...Those are the major patterns I've seen. On one hand of the spectrum, I played one game in which Cleopatra must have been schizophrenic: she had the Paranoid agenda. Another game, I encountered Gorgo with the Darwinist agenda. Personally, I think "Idealogue" should be cut from the game. Conflict between different forms of government wasn't really a thing until the Cold War, and the penalties for different governments is already too extreme without the Idealogue agenda. Any leader with that agenda is insufferable.

There's been a lot of discussion on the forums about wheter Macedon was Greek or not, but one of the main reasons why the Greeks of that time didn't consider them Greek, was because they were a kingdom, not independant city-states. So it's not been since the cold war only (I suppose, btw, that you meant "since early 20th century"?).

 

[Photi]

And Cleo. Sigh. I'm a sucker for pretty eyes. I move heaven and earth to liberate her cities. Damn fool.

plus she usually has a couple of wonders worth liberating from the unappreciative AIs

 

[nzcamel]

My favs are Philip with his big cheesy grin, & Fred with his husky 'heh heh heh" laugh when he's happy.
Gilgi is a good ally

I’ll tell you one thing: when Mvemba does his little finger-waving act, I want to put my fist through my monitor. It’s even more infuriating to me than when Gilgamesh says “You mad, bro.”

I do enjoy getting Mvemba to throw his staff lol. That deep wooden echo is very satisfying *evil grin*

I like Victoria for the same reason.

Yeah, her tanties are the best

Personally, I think "Idealogue" should be cut from the game. Conflict between different forms of government wasn't really a thing until the Cold War, and the penalties for different governments is already too extreme without the Idealogue agenda. Any leader with that agenda is insufferable.

Agreed.

There's been a lot of discussion on the forums about wheter Macedon was Greek or not, but one of the main reasons why the Greeks of that time didn't consider them Greek, was because they were a kingdom, not independant city-states. So it's not been since the cold war only (I suppose, btw, that you meant "since early 20th century"?).

Well, there will always be an exception! It makes sense that the founders of democracy would have issues with authoritarians

 

[CHP]

Conflict between different forms of government wasn't really a thing until the Cold War

False. France was dowed by all europe after the revolution (because european kings feared to share the fate of the french king Louis XVI)

 

[nzcamel]

False. France was dowed by all europe after the revolution (because european kings feared to share the fate of the french king Louis XVI)

False is a little too black and white; though sure, you have just offered another example of governments taking direct issue with another form of government pre WWII. That revolution accompanied said government had something to do with it too. I mean they didn't dow England & the UK even as it much earlier started paring back the rights of its monarchs. How it happened was at least as important to it happening.

 

[Zaarin]

There's been a lot of discussion on the forums about wheter Macedon was Greek or not, but one of the main reasons why the Greeks of that time didn't consider them Greek, was because they were a kingdom, not independant city-states. So it's not been since the cold war only (I suppose, btw, that you meant "since early 20th century"?).

Perhaps, but you'd be hard pressed to find many more examples. Besides, I think the issue here is that Macedon's kingdom involved more than one city (which perhaps reminded them of their dread rival Persia); there were certainly Greek city-states with dictatorships, not just Spartan oligarchies or Athenian democracies.

False. France was dowed by all europe after the revolution (because european kings feared to share the fate of the french king Louis XVI)

That is an extraordinary oversimplification. It was less the form of government that was the issue than the violent and bloody abolition of both the monarchy and aristocracy--a trend that other monarchs were concerned about spreading to their own countries. There's also the issue that it was generally considered blasphemy to do personal harm to the king; that's why the conclusion of the English Civil War and execution of Charles I was also regarded as shocking if not quite so threatening. The French Revolution would have been greeted no more kindly if it had resulted in the establishing of a new monarchy--which, as a matter of fact, it did. Twice. If it were simply a matter of government, all of Europe would have also declared war on the Italian republics, German theocracies, and Monaco, too.


If the penalty were -1 or -2, it might be reasonable; the -6 or whatever it is makes it nearly impossible to have good relations with anyone not sharing your government. If the AI had "preferred" governments at each level, this would also help: the AI seems to use whatever the most recent government they've unlocked happens to be.

 

[DWilson]

If the penalty were -1 or -2, it might be reasonable; the -6 or whatever it is makes it nearly impossible to have good relations with anyone not sharing your government. If the AI had "preferred" governments at each level, this would also help: the AI seems to use whatever the most recent government they've unlocked happens to be.

I don't think you know how to use the diplomacy system. Minus six can be inconvenient, sure, but open borders alone usually covers about half that. Embassies are, what, plus five? You can add a temporary boost with favorable trade. @Victoria is the leading diplomacy proficianado, so she could probably provide the most help for you.

 

[Zaarin]

I don't think you know how to use the diplomacy system. Minus six can be inconvenient, sure, but open borders alone usually covers about half that. Embassies are, what, plus five? You can add a temporary boost with favorable trade. @Victoria is the leading diplomacy proficianado, so she could probably provide the most help for you.

I rarely send traders outside my own borders unless pushing for a culture victory. You have to have at least neutral relations to establish an embassy or the AI leader won't accept it; on a rare occasion I've gotten an unhappy AI leader to accept it, but not often. The AI rarely has anything worth trading, especially since Civ5's "luxury for luxury" trades virtually never happen in Civ6. If the AI has the Idealogue hidden agenda, that's another -16 for a total of -22 from having a different government (in the midgame!!!). Even if they're not an Idealogue, if you happen to tick off another one of their agendas (probably), that could be another -10+. The agenda system is something that looks good on paper but, in my opinion, is completely broken in game. Some leaders hate you just for playing intelligently (Pedro, Qin Shi Huang, Barbarossa); others will hate you or love you based on sheer chance (Victoria, Teddy, Montezuma). IMO agendas should have been designed in such a way that playing in a certain way would improve or hurt relations (so, Cleo, Trajan, Tokimune, Philip, Mvemba have well designed agendas IMO; admittedly all of them always hate me because I rarely have large armies or empires and I tend to keep my religion to myself...).

 

[nzcamel]

I have found that I can build better relationships in recent games. Having said that, I'm only playing on prince since the Australian patch; though I will look to step back up to king sometime soon.

 

[runawayRoman]

Philip, he calls me a sinner and we are friends most of the time though.

 

[Victoria]

You should send an embassy to most people you meet immediately and straight after war. This embassy is a non-decaying +3.
First impressions might even be -8 on deity...but 40 turns go quickly and then its only -4 which with the envoy is -1, another 10 turns and you are on 0 with a civ that seriously did not like your face.

The agendas may seem bad but they are cleverly mixed, some leaders will treat you well at the start like Monty and hate you later. Other leaders like Trajan will hate you early and love you late. So for example you start next to Fred and Qin and Fred (-4) attacks you just because he can and you fend him off, maybe even get a settler. At this stage of the game the government modifier at worse will be -3 and best +2 but lets assume he has not changed govt, you are both cheftain and it is +1. Fred suddenly likes you because you have no envoys with CS but not enough to be friends. Once you have foreign trade you ask fred to go in a joint war with you against qin and he agrees. Fred will do this as its now about turn 30 so he is -1 first impressions +3 envoy +12 City states. With the joint war you also get +5 which degrades quite slowly and now ask hom to pay a little for your open borders for another +3. You are now on +22 and he agrees to be your friend for +9 making it +31. Fred now changes goverment and gets cross at you for city states but you will still get around +15 with him. This will not last more than 30 turns before it starts degrading and in the long run Fred is going to dislike you. Quin on the other hand will build about 3 wonders amd if you build just the ones you need he will stay neutral, i personally rarely build wonders and Qin usually loves me for it. But that takes time, when my relashionship with fred is getting worse someone elses is getting better, you find someone (Peter) who is red with Fred so you denounce fred with Peter getting +5, open borders with him +3, have a delegation +3....its not long before you are friends and by this stage you can also be allies which is a whopping +18 and a whole bunch of other things kick in like allied with a friend/ allied with an enemy.

Some things I am discovering are early friends are hard to keep until the midgame unless the agenda is very nice. It seems more advantageous to hold off on some relations until the mid game. In fact many of the early game people that are fairly easy to befriend are warlike which you want to get on with early and hate later. Its not that simple and secondary agendas make it interesting. Its not the best system in the world but its OK, yes some agendas can swing wildly. Thats were things like goverments count.... If they are -3 for different goverments then change to theirs and get +2, a swing of 5 points, free a city state is a permanent +5, they are your religion... +5

Will you get on with everyone? No, often many will not like you if you do too much
If you do nothing what happens? Most will end up disliking you

Envoy is a must amd gives you +3 all game
Open borders with those you like +3

You have a +6 before anything else that is normally gettable

Possibly change goverment, joint war, denounce their enemies (not cumulative), free a CS or captured city for a perm +5,
if you have a religion, those converted civs will give you +5 which makes a religious game interesting
Once friends, if you have civil service your allues can snowball in a single turn from 0 to 4 or 5 as the +9 friends stacks with the +18 ally

The best I have got was around +65....that is a lot of warmonger points counteracted.

 

[Shorlin]

Gorgo is my favourite, because she loves my warmongering. We're like Bonnie and Clyde.

 

[Leyrann]

Gorgo is my favourite, because she loves my warmongering. We're like Bonnie and Clyde.

When I play a domination game she still hates me half of the time because I gotta get that war weariness gone before declaring my next war...

 

[The Kingmaker]

I like all of the leaders and how much personality they have, even though several of them are grouchy most of the time.

If any of them annoys me, it'd have to be Pedro, but I don't mind him that much.

 

[LethalLeigh]

Gilgamesh.... he is always happy to be my friend and Ally. and doesn't get pissed or denounce me after I cap 1 city after 300 turn of being peaceful.

 

[Victoria]

Gilgamesh.... he is always happy to be my friend and Ally. and doesn't get pissed or denounce me after I cap 1 city after 300 turn of being peaceful.

Thats more likely due to being any ally than a big happy muscly chap

 

[Tacgnol]

Gilgamesh is always a homie, he's the only one you can make an ally by, like, actually being a loyal friend instead of fulfilling some arbitrary game requirements...

I like Victoria too, she is nice to have around and hits me up a lot, and always founds nice cities for me to take over

Catherine is quite annoying. Telling me how much she dislikes me, all the time, even before I have any spies...

Pericles is also really annoying, disliking me if I ever use any of my envoys at all...

Gorgo, Trajan and Harald are usually quite aggressive but I feel once I prove my worth militarily they will respect me.

 

[GIO888]

If you're a sad, aging Civ I Veteran Junkie with a string of broken relationships behind you as a consequence;

Victoria is lovely and coquettish, Jadwiga is a fine fur fox I give anything she asks just for that shrug she does when you're friends, and I must admit I changed the Scythian first meet text so Tomyris offers me "wild sex" instead of friendship.

As a Militant Heterosexual I find I get along with Cyrus, Alexander (yes, it IS possible!) and Trajan, but I suspect that's my playing style - I pretty much always swat Gandhi and that nice African chap because they're so irritatingly accommodating!!!

Happy Days.

 

[Victoria]

wish I could like it twice @GIDS888