New Agendas

[agonistes]

What new agendas would you like to see?

Not a thread on whether or not you like agendas in general. Just curious to see what good ideas folks have for new agendas.

And... should agendas change by era?

 

[Siptah]

No they shouldn't change by era, just as the leaders don't change.

I'd like a peaceful religion agenda: likes it if you found a religion but don't spread it to any other civs (save city states)
and a tourism agenda: likes it if you create impressive amounts of tourism

Edit:
a friendship liker: likes civs that have lots of friendships or open borders with other civs

 

[DanaLea]

I like those. I'm sure there will eventually be a mod that creates new agendas... maybe after all the proper modding tools are out.

 

[NegativeZero]

I'd be interested to see some agendas around:

• Likes civs whom it has multiple trade deals (3-4) with.
• Likes civs whom has many shallow water or ocean tiles included within their empire. Dislikes civs with many mountain tiles
  
• Likes civs with different governments then itself. Dislikes civs with the same government type. (I think this would be a really interesting one)
• Likes civs with many city-states as suzerin. Dislikes civs without any suzerin bonuses.
  
• Likes civs that are behind them in science. Dislike civs with more completed science research. (best buddy when trying to catch up @ higher difficulty levels)

 

[nzcamel]

I'm thinking.... lol... I'll come back to you...

 

[unpossible251]

Intellectual Property: Dislikes civs that complete research agreements.
Stand Up: respects civs that respond to denounciations by declaring formal war.
Holy Warrior: respects civs that declare holy war.

but broadly speaking, i'd say they should focus on making the AI a little bit more thick skinned, rather than piling more and more intricate features and inputs.

 

[Returning Lurker]

Progressive: Likes civs that change governments regularly, dislikes civs that stay as one government for extended periods. (Only applies to civs that have unlocked multiple types of government)

Traditionalist: Likes civs that build up large legacy bonuses, dislikes civs that change governments without acquiring large legacy bonuses. (Doesn't apply to chiefdom)

Raider: Likes civs that pillage tiles and raze captured cities, dislikes civs that keep captured cities and repair pillaged improvements in captured cities.

Charitable: Likes civs that give favorable trade deals, even when they are not the recipient. Dislikes civs that make demands.

Imperialist: Likes civs which declare war on and/or capture the cities of less developed nations, dislikes civs which declare war on and/or conquer the cities of equally advanced or more advanced nations.

Just a few ideas off the top of my head. As for agendas changing by era... not yet since the pool of available agendas is too small to support the idea, but once we get +50 then I could see that being a cool feature.

 

[Siptah]

Cavalryman: Likes civs that use mounted units. Dislikes civ without mounted units.

Educator: Likes civs that have Great Works of Writing in their cities. Dislikes civs without them.

Landscape lover: Likes civs that have a high tile appeal throughout their lands. Dislikes civs with a low average of tile appeal.

Connaisseur: Likes civs that have Great Works of Art in their museums. Dislikes civs without them.

Common Ground: Likes civs that have similar terrain in their empire. If this civ has a lot of desert and mountains, it likes civs that have desert and mountains, too. It doesn't need to be like Montezuma's Agenda and be exactly the same thing though.

Urbanist: Likes civs whose cities have a large population.

 

[Returning Lurker]

[insert name here]: Likes civs that have similar terrain in their empire. If this civ has a lot of desert and mountains, it likes civs that have desert and mountains, too. It doesn't need to be like Montezuma's Agenda and be exactly the same thing though.

I know this is a bad pun, but how about "Common Ground". Lame puns are better than no name, at least until a better one is presented.

 

[craney1987]

calming influence: Dislikes civs who denounce regularly. Likes civs who rarely denounce
best of everything: Likes civs who have the most modern army. Dislikes those who have the technology, but who havnt upgraded their military

 

[Victoria]

I like agendas on personality, paranoid may be a pain but I love them for it all the same

Indecisive
Changes agenda every era

Sycophant
+4 to the civ leading each victory condition

Grumpy
-4 if you have open borders
+6 for closed borders

Positive thinker
+4 to everyone

Gossip
+1 for each diplomatic level them have with you
-4 for closed borders

Jealous
-6 if you are beating them in their victory condition

sexist
+6 for the same sex as them
-6 for the opposite sex
(Maybe we can have a sex change card in the modern era)

Maybe we could combine them?

Nice threads @agonistes, makes you realise their agendas match the game, a lot of what is already suggested is sub versions of what is in the game

 

[Zuizgond]

- Likes civilization that shuffles their troops just in front of the city they are attacking instead of attacking
- Likes civilization that asks for friendship every turn even if the partner is not interested
- Likes civilization that denounces you for existing
- Likes civilization that send unprotected settlers to the front lines during war
- Likes civilization that occupies your own tiles during open borders
- Likes civilization that wastes their unit promotion with commando

 

[Victoria]

I wish I could hate it @Zuizgond just to be in keeping with your wonderful post.

What would you call this agenda? UberAI?

 

[Abraxis]

I don't think agendas changing every era is a good idea at all. It would make leaders seem comically unstable. Also if I decide I want to please this person or that, and steer my strategy toward it I'm doing so under the guarantee that it will yield positive results. Having them flip over on me would be infuriating. It would just encourage a complete lack of involvement, because being involved would never be worth it.

Moderation is key: If all techs and civics available to research are of roughly equal value they will highly approve. If there is great disparity (techs have been left behind) they will disapprove.

Hero of the Underdog: Very high opinion of civs with low scores, slight malus to the civ with the highest score.

Contrarian: Loves civs everyone else hates.

Globalist: Maintains and likes civs who maintain mostly external trade routes.
Isolationist: Maintains and likes civs who maintain mostly internal trade routes.

Addictive personality: This leader has found what he/she wants out of life, and they want more; all of it, in fact. This civ will try to horde a random specific luxury. They will like civs who provide it to them, and absolutely detest anyone who withholds any. They will stop at nothing to acquire all of it.

Love at First Sight: Something just clicks for this leader upon meeting that special someone. This leader will be unnaturally attracted to a random civ and will always have a high opinion of them no matter what happens.

 

[nzcamel]

I don't think agendas changing every era is a good idea at all. It would make leaders seem comically unstable. Also if I decide I want to please this person or that, and steer my strategy toward it I'm doing so under the guarantee that it will yield positive results. Having them flip over on me would be infuriating. It would just encourage a complete lack of involvement, because being involved would never be worth it.

Could be an option for Marathon only

 

[agonistes]

but broadly speaking, i'd say they should focus on making the AI a little bit more thick skinned, rather than piling more and more intricate features and inputs.

Its beginning to seem like I dreamed it, but I thought Ed was all into diplomacy and said they didn't have time to do everything they wanted and that the big diplomacy push would come first expac. I *thought* he said this even before launch.

So I am expecting them to adjust personalities.

I don't think agendas changing every era is a good idea at all. It would make leaders seem comically unstable. Also if I decide I want to please this person or that, and steer my strategy toward it I'm doing so under the guarantee that it will yield positive results. Having them flip over on me would be infuriating. It would just encourage a complete lack of involvement, because being involved would never be worth it.

Moderation is key: If all techs and civics available to research are of roughly equal value they will highly approve. If there is great disparity (techs have been left behind) they will disapprove.

Hero of the Underdog: Very high opinion of civs with low scores, slight malus to the civ with the highest score.

Contrarian: Loves civs everyone else hates.

Globalist: Maintains and likes civs who maintain mostly external trade routes.
Isolationist: Maintains and likes civs who maintain mostly internal trade routes.

Addictive personality: This leader has found what he/she wants out of life, and they want more; all of it, in fact. This civ will try to horde a random specific luxury. They will like civs who provide it to them, and absolutely detest anyone who withholds any. They will stop at nothing to acquire all of it.

Love at First Sight: Something just clicks for this leader upon meeting that special someone. This leader will be unnaturally attracted to a random civ and will always have a high opinion of them no matter what happens.

Well, I have air superiority and nuke happy in mind. Can't these be made to have an impact earlier?

Which got me thinking about other agendas that could shift a bit from era to era. Like Teddy: both Big Stick and Environmentalism could be candidates for changing over time.

I'm not speaking of total sea changes. Jeez! These guys are crazy enough as is!

edit: aaaand, I promised myself I wouldn't post for 30 days... didn't last long.

edit 2: Abraxis- which is to say, not changing what agendas each has, but changing the weight or adjusting what influences them... by changing agendas I mean the agendas themselves, not what agendas the civs have.

 

[Victoria]

aaaand, I promised myself I wouldn't post for 30 days... didn't last long

I blame the lack of chew

 

[MisterBoomBoom]

Agendas. Never paid attention to them. Seems not to hurt my chances of winning in the least.

 

[Victoria]

Seems not to hurt my chances of winning in the least.

lets hope it gets harder for you

Allies have great intelligence (so to speak)

 

[agonistes]

Take oil for example. The suggestion for agendas based on a particular resource is a great (!!!) one.

But having it be oil would be meh for quite some time.

So maybe it starts as horses or coffee and then shifts to oil.

Which also makes me wonder about resource based districts (or improvements) and bonuses for monopolies, civs recognizing monopolies and allowing it to impact trade deals, or the same for merely controlling a majority share.

I've gotten some sweet deals for a resource before, but having a global craze for a random resource by average era would be neat.