New First Look: Pachacuti

[Krikkit1]

My post didn't age well

Yes, but his bonus would be there all 3 ages, the Inca can only work the mountains for one age (although their Terrace farms would last into the next Age)

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Real world Pachacuti, learning about the Alps and the Himalayas, immediately sends someone to count how many mountains Switzerland and Tibet have so he can hate on one (and only one) of them. Along the way, he learns about the mountain-less expanses of Egypt and thinks, "now that's a civ I can be friends with".

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Real world Pachacuti, learning about the Alps and the Himalayas, immediately sends someone to count how many mountains Switzerland and Tibet have so he can hate on one (and only one) of them. Along the way, he learns about the mountain-less expanses of Egypt and thinks, "now that's a civ I can be friends with".

The "hate how you settled" agendas are truly the worst, and I'm saddened to see them return.

 

[Guandao]

Menelik II hates me for settling on hills. Dido hates me for settling on coast. Gitarja hates me for settling on islands......

 

[Krikkit1]

The "hate how you settled" agendas are truly the worst, and I'm saddened to see them return.

If they just reworded that slightly (your _____ would make a fine addition to my own)... could apply to Augustus and Towns as well

 

[ehecatzin]

Weird as it sounds, I want to try Han into Inca, find a bunch of chokepoints in the mountains, close them with great walls and go super tall with my extra good specialists.

 

[Fummy]

Menelik II hates me for settling on hills. Dido hates me for settling on coast. Gitarja hates me for settling on islands......

It seems the wording is different to in Civ 6. he hates the civ with the most mountains but there is no negative for being second place. If he himself has the most mountains presumably he doesnt have a negative modifier for anyone.

 

[gdr_willter]

The "hate how you settled" agendas are truly the worst, and I'm saddened to see them return.

But fortunately, now he only hate the leader who has the most mountains. It seems better than hating all who have more than one mountain.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Weird as it sounds, I want to try Han into Inca, find a bunch of chokepoints in the mountains, close them with great walls and go super tall with my extra good specialists.

I was kind of thinking Khmer into Inca (making sure to use Pachacuti to ensure mountain starting bias). The Khmer have a few Specialist-favoring Traditions that would pair nicely with the Inca, plus the Baray would amp up Food even more.

 

[CivKirk64]

Food from mountains , leading the Normans and nestling all my little fort cities in all the mountain passes sounds like a fun way to turtle.

 

[Lord Lakely]

I did expect Pachacuti to make a return, but I didn't think it would be this soon.

Again, the same issue with the other choices - he's objectively the best choice but also an oversaturated choice.

On the flip side, we now have a leader for Mississipians and Mayans in antiquity.

 

[Nic@Melbourne]

Ability will work well with Maya and Inca

 

[ehecatzin]

I did expect Pachacuti to make a return, but I didn't think it would be this soon.

Again, the same issue with the other choices - he's objectively the best choice but also an oversaturated choice.

On the flip side, we now have a leader for Mississipians and Mayans in antiquity.

Kind of? that mountain bias I don't think helps the Mayans that much. Personaly I think Tecumseh Mayans seems nice flavour wise, developing a network of city states outside of my jungle core. Pachacuti could be cool with Mayans if mountains can count as "vegetated" but I have no idea that's the case.

If jungle mountains are vegetated, man, Pachacuti Mayans- Inca sounds fun.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Menelik II hates me for settling on hills. Dido hates me for settling on coast. Gitarja hates me for settling on islands......

Genghis will probably just hate you for having settlements, in general.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Genghis will probably just hate you for having settlements, in general.

Genghis will probably just hate you

 

[Seek]

The "hate how you settled" agendas are truly the worst, and I'm saddened to see them return.

If you step back and think about such agendas they are very logical when the leader has terrain bonuses. For example, if I’m playing Pachacuti and you have more mountains than anyone else and I’m looking to expand, of course I’m going to want to target you above anyone else.

It’s not “hate” it’s simply playing to a leader’s strengths.* Less emotion, more cold analysis.

*Ideally, anyway - I’ll caveat this by admitting some agendas are better designed than others.

Edit: spelling

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

If you step back and think about such agendas they are very logical when the leader has terrain bonuses. For example, if I’m playing Pachauki and you have more mountains than anyone else and I’m looking to expand, of course I’m going to want to target you above anyone else.

It’s not “hate” it’s simply playing to a leader’s strengths.* Less emotion, more cold analysis.

*Ideally, anyway - I’ll caveat this by admitting some agendas are better designed than others.

It's purely a gameplay thing and not a historical flavor. Like, Cleopatra liking a leader with a big army is a nice historical flavor. Pachacuti hating a leader from the other side of the world because they happen to have some mountains is not a nice flavor.

 

[Krikkit1]

It's purely a gameplay thing and not a historical flavor. Like, Cleopatra liking a leader with a big army is a nice historical flavor. Pachacuti hating a leader from the other side of the world because they happen to have some mountains is not a nice flavor.

The other issue is its not "like or hate" the AI may decide to target you even though you have a high relationship... (they just will probably spend some of their influence to bring your relationship down before declaring war on you... unless they figure they can avoid the penalties.

The Agendas/Relationships are bonus/penalties to the AI performing a particular strategy... they aren't the AIs behavior factors.

Beware Machiavelli leading Meiji

 

[Seek]

It's purely a gameplay thing and not a historical flavor. Like, Cleopatra liking a leader with a big army is a nice historical flavor. Pachacuti hating a leader from the other side of the world because they happen to have some mountains is not a nice flavor.

I get you. For me, the “flavorful” ones that make no gameplay sense drive me up the wall. Using your example, Cleopatra should have a legitimate gameplay reason (ie, a bonus of some kind) to want to ally a leader with a large army, else it loses meaning and becomes arbitrary. Imo it would be best to give the leader the flavor via their uniques and let the agendas logically extend that flavor.

To your other example re Pachacuti - indeed, some sort of proximity adjustment should be implemented for terrain agendas, that would help a ton.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

To your other example re Pachacuti - indeed, some sort of proximity adjustment should be implemented for terrain agendas, that would help a ton.

Yes, it should be along the lines of we at least share the same mountain range. If there are no shared mountains, or none of your settlements share the same land, there should be no logical reason for him to hate you.