Historical Agendas

[daft]

I like this. It's a lot more representative of what drove English / British policy than simply 'BUILD A HUGE NAVY'.

Of course, an England that doesn't have a nifty defensive position (like being on an island) is likely to get its clock cleaned if it starts squaring off against the regional hardass.

England/Britain should also be very colonial and quite aggressive, seeking to get their hands on all available colonial land, either for settlement or for trade's sake, and if need be, kick those already there out by force. They'd rule their colonial towns quite harshly, and if any tried to break away from their empire would try and punish them severely.
British would try and take any land they deemed valuable and desirable to their rivals, especially France and Spain, even if they have no need for it. Excellent at capturing and holding strategic geographical areas on the map (Gibraltar, Cape Town), ones very often crossed by other navies to collect tax and tribute, sink enemy vessels and add to their naval domination and the military and financial control of nearby lands.
England traditionally an enemy of France, and usually as the aggressor. Until modern eras, where they could become best of allies.
Imperialistic/ although quite Honorable/Spiritual/Advancing well in technology, Aggressive when needed, Mercantile, Highly Naval/Seafaring nation, looking to dominate the seas and to build a huge empire.

 

[Art Grin]

England getting an agenda based on the balance of power seems like quite a good idea. It's also something that works on any map unlike having a big navy which wouldn't make sense on Pangaea.

Of course I wonder which leader would go well with this agenda.
Victoria maybe?

 

[Veras]

England getting an agenda based on the balance of power seems like quite a good idea. It's also something that works on any map unlike having a big navy which wouldn't make sense on Pangaea.

Of course I wonder which leader would go well with this agenda.
Victoria maybe?

As I mentioned, this could work for any English leader from the start of the Modern Era until the Cold War. I hope we got Queen Victoria this time.

The main issue with this Agenda is the possibility of England not being capable to counter the runaway civ (considering a map where it doesn't get the advantage of being on an Island) and be destroyed in the process. But if we consider real life, England has always took that risk in the name of the balance of power.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

As I mentioned, this could work for any English leader from the start of the Modern Era until the Cold War. I hope we got Queen Victoria this time.

The main issue with this Agenda is the possibility of England not being capable to counter the runaway civ (considering a map where it doesn't get the advantage of being on an Island) and be destroyed in the process. But if we consider real life, England has always took that risk in the name of the balance of power.

2 thoughts on that

1. The Agendas aren't "Player must" they are 'player will tend to'. So an England with that agenda won't autodeclare war on the leader, they will do what fits their military/diplomatic position (they will tend to dislike them, but if the runaway is incredibly nice to England and incredibly powerful, England would take it)

2. If the runaway is too big and dangerous for England to stop, then they are dead anyways.


A third unrelated thought.... this Agenda would make a nearby England Really annoying for the player, because the player is likely to be at the top of the power chart in their area.

 

[ftl]

I hope the agendas are designed so that chasing then actually helps the ai win. It always bugged me that the diplomacy in Civ 5 led to the ai doing things based on how much they liked you, that made no sense for them in their position. Like, a Civ losing a war to a strong opponent would still give me all their money in trade for resources they clearly have no need for, if I had a bunch of positive diplo modifiers.

Like, Egypt's dislike of weak civs should lead them to a strategy where they attack the weakest civ around to take their land, rather than just refusing to trade. Roosevelt's dislike of nearby warmongers should tie in to their global strategy, maybe something trade or culture based that works better when there is peace around. If the agendas are just random likes and dislikes that give diplo bonuses and penalties, the diplo is still going to feel ad hoc tacked on. The agendas should make sense in the context of the game.

 

[Haig]

Some reporter/youtuber, I think it was BAStart Gaming dude, said that Japanese leader in Civ 6 is not Oda Nobudaga or Tokugawa, but some other dude looking like a samurai. No idea who, Hideyoshi? (also claimed that vanilla Civ6 has more civs at launch than vanilla civ5 )

I'd like Japan to have a leader with an isolation agenda, although then they should have an unique ability to make them benefit about it, like a cultural bonus. Not sure which leader would represent it well.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Some reporter/youtuber, I think it was BAStart Gaming dude, said that Japanese leader in Civ 6 is not Oda Nobudaga or Tokugawa, but some other dude looking like a samurai. No idea who, Hideyoshi? (also claimed that vanilla Civ6 has more civs at launch than vanilla civ5 )

I'd like Japan to have a leader with an isolation agenda, although then they should have an unique ability to make them benefit about it, like a cultural bonus. Not sure which leader would represent it well.

Oda Nobunaga is a bit strange choice as he failed to become shogun. Tokugawa Ieyasu is much better choice. He's very good diplomat and and initiator of Japanese isolationism. If he will be the japanese leader, we'll probably have some isolationist civ, like Civ5's Korea.

 

[awesome]

Well, I guess it won't be Meiji.

 

[Art Grin]

A samurai looking leader could be Hideyoshi or maybe one of the earlier shoguns like Minamoto no Yoritomo.

 

[Scaramanga]

English attitude of Fair Play comes mind. They make great soccer refs!

 

[Picrasso]

Shaka: Military prowess. Will like/dislike civs depending their military tradition (tech/civics).

Monty: Reverence to the gods. Will respect people with good faith generation. Will get angry at people who neglect faith.

Genghis: I like the tribute one. Refuse and he will hate you.

England: Tries to trade with as many different people as possible

Rome: Keep the borders save. Will try to have a good military infrastructure (with military districts, walls, garrisons etc)

 

[Veras]

Oda Nobunaga is a bit strange choice as he failed to become shogun. Tokugawa Ieyasu is much better choice. He's very good diplomat and and initiator of Japanese isolationism. If he will be the japanese leader, we'll probably have some isolationist civ, like Civ5's Korea.

A possible agenda for an Isolationist Japan could be:

Sokaku - Will dislike every civ in his continent as well as every civ who send missionaries to Japan

By disliking all his neighbours, Japan would end up following a strategy of expansion by conquest of its surroundings, much like happened in real life after the Meiji Restoration. In order to counter the negative bonus in trade and diplomacy caused by following this agenda, there could be an UA or UB to power up internal trade routes.

 

[dexters]

Some reporter/youtuber, I think it was BAStart Gaming dude, said that Japanese leader in Civ 6 is not Oda Nobudaga or Tokugawa, but some other dude looking like a samurai. No idea who, Hideyoshi? (also claimed that vanilla Civ6 has more civs at launch than vanilla civ5 )

I'd like Japan to have a leader with an isolation agenda, although then they should have an unique ability to make them benefit about it, like a cultural bonus. Not sure which leader would represent it well.

Emperor Meiji would be my pick. He is the one who finally opened up Japan to the west and industrialised Japan.

Nobunaga/Tokugawa/Hideyoshi were all from the same period , and were the leading figures that united Japan.

Japanese history after their time was equally as interesting if no more interesting.
This would position Japan more as a scientificul/production Civ that is friendlier and more amenable to Research Alliances

It's Agenda could be something like - Restorer of Emperor (made up name); leader is friendlier to more technologically advanced Civ and will form alliances and coalitions with them;

 

[m15a]

A possible agenda for an Isolationist Japan could be:

Sokaku - Will dislike every civ in his continent as well as every civ who send missionaries to Japan

By disliking all his neighbours, Japan would end up following a strategy of expansion by conquest of its surroundings, much like happened in real life after the Meiji Restoration. In order to counter the negative bonus in trade and diplomacy caused by following this agenda, there could be an UA or UB to power up internal trade routes.

I'm not sure an agenda should be so bad that it needs to have a bonus to balance it. I think the agendas should be at least somewhat positive from a strategic standpoint while also being a potential flaw. Like, China's agenda to have the most wonders makes strategic sense since wonders are powerful, but attacking civs just because they have wonders would be a flaw. And, for Egypt, allying with militarily stronger civs makes sense in terms of protection in the short term, but could ultimately lead to being conquered by that military power.

I don't know much about Japanese history, but maybe a more positive isolationist agenda would be to refuse to ally with (or trade with) civs that are at war or civs that have a bigger warmonger status. That would be strategic in avoiding being pulled into wars while being at the price of missing out on potentially beneficial trade opportunities.

 

[j51]

Since there's only one leader per civ, it's an academic question.

Was that confirmed?


Suleyman: Wants to be the suzerain of the most city states. Could work well as a rival to Austria, if they return with the same unique ability as in V.
Mansa Musa: Wants you to trade with him. Hates you if you wont.
Lenin: Wants all civs to share his government. Will do anything he can to spread it: military, diplomatic, espionage.

 

[Veras]

I'm not sure an agenda should be so bad that it needs to have a bonus to balance it. I think the agendas should be at least somewhat positive from a strategic standpoint while also being a potential flaw. Like, China's agenda to have the most wonders makes strategic sense since wonders are powerful, but attacking civs just because they have wonders would be a flaw. And, for Egypt, allying with militarily stronger civs makes sense in terms of protection in the short term, but could ultimately lead to being conquered by that military power.

I don't know much about Japanese history, but maybe a more positive isolationist agenda would be to refuse to ally with (or trade with) civs that are at war or civs that have a bigger warmonger status. That would be strategic in avoiding being pulled into wars while being at the price of missing out on potentially beneficial trade opportunities.

You can't have Isolationism without isolation. By disliking only warmongers and civs at war, Japan would follow an Agenda of pacifism, not isolationism. But thinking again, I don't think the Sokaku Agenda would hurt Japan at all. There will still be civs and city-states in other continents (let's see how this continent thing works in Pangea) to trade with. Japan still traded with the distant Dutch, anyway. With an internal trade route bonus, Japan will be very self-suficient in its own continent. Either way, the hostility to foreign missionaries still suits them very well in my opinion.

 

[dexters]

You can't have Isolationism without isolation. By disliking only warmongers and civs at war, Japan would follow an Agenda of pacifism, not isolationism. But thinking again, I don't think the Sokaku Agenda would hurt Japan at all. There will still be civs and city-states in other continents (let's see how this continent thing works in Pangea) to trade with. Japan still traded with the distant Dutch, anyway. With an internal trade route bonus, Japan will be very self-suficient in its own continent. Either way, the hostility to foreign missionaries still suits them very well in my opinion.

Japan's role as an Asian power is also not in its isolation (China did it better) but it's full on embrace of modernisation and being the 1st Asian power to be invited into the all white club of world powers at the turn of the 20th century.

The Nobunaga/Tokugawa (warring states) period has cultural cache because of the Kurosawa films and the popular TV show Shogun, and this goes back to Civ starting its life somewhat of a theme park like 'smash bros' empire builder where the designers cherry picked the most recognisable themes from each Civ, and the warring states period with the Samurais certainly defined Japan in a lot of people's minds.

Meiji would be fitting and that would also position Japan to play different from being the 3rd/bottom tier warmonger Civ it's always been relegated to into something more fitting of its recent history.

 

[Haig]

Veras: I like that Sokaku idea, been thinking myself how to turn the isolation into game terms that would make sense, that's pretty nice.

Of course Japan's Agenda could be more Imperial Japan style, who knows. Imperial Japanese Navy has always been fascinating.

 

[Veras]

Japan's role as an Asian power is also not in its isolation (China did it better) but it's full on embrace of modernisation and being the 1st Asian power to be invited into the all white club of world powers at the turn of the 20th century.

The Nobunaga/Tokugawa (warring states) period has cultural cache because of the Kurosawa films and the popular TV show Shogun, and this goes back to Civ starting its life somewhat of a theme park like 'smash bros' empire builder where the designers cherry picked the most recognisable themes from each Civ, and the warring states period with the Samurais certainly defined Japan in a lot of people's minds.

Meiji would be fitting and that would also position Japan to play different from being the 3rd/bottom tier warmonger Civ it's always been relegated to into something more fitting of its recent history.

I would also like to see Meiji as Japan's leader, but someone said in this thread that a journalist had seen the new Japan's leader dressed like a samurai, so I'm speculating on top of this.

Well, seing Cleopatra as Egypt's leader show us that the cherry picking isn't over after all.

Anyway, I think the japanese isolation is more iconic and even more efective than China's. On land borders, no isolation is perfect. China isolatated itself by sea, but still interacted with its land neighbors. Being on an island, Japan really did a good job in isolating itself for two centuries, and both this or a Meiji Agenda could offer an unique gameplay for civ 6.

 

[m15a]

You can't have Isolationism without isolation. By disliking only warmongers and civs at war, Japan would follow an Agenda of pacifism, not isolationism. But thinking again, I don't think the Sokaku Agenda would hurt Japan at all. There will still be civs and city-states in other continents (let's see how this continent thing works in Pangea) to trade with. Japan still traded with the distant Dutch, anyway. With an internal trade route bonus, Japan will be very self-suficient in its own continent. Either way, the hostility to foreign missionaries still suits them very well in my opinion.

In Civ V, trade with neighbors still pretty important if playing on a continent style map. City states help with trade routes, but refusing to trade luxuries with multiple of the same is much more bad then good. That might not be an issue in Civ VI, but if there's an equivalent issue, it might not be a good strategy.

From skimming Wikipedia, it seems like Japan was considered isolationist while still trading with neighbors. I don't know the details, but that suggested to me that you can have isolationism without isolation.