Opinions about Diplomacy (mod research)

[Infixo]

I am working on a mod that would make diplomacy a bit more engaging and perhaps more challenging. I would appreciate to hear your opinions on key diplomacy aspects, issues, good and bad things, etc. What is considered diplomacy in this post? Features of the game like agendas, diplomatic modifiers, diplomatic state (neutral, friendly, denounced, etc.) So, basically actions and features that influence the relationship between major civs. As a sort of opener, would you be so kind and answer the question from the poll.
Some topics that I'd appreciate to hear about.
- How easy or hard should be to befriend or ally a civ?
- If diplomacy and diplo modifiers should be symmetric or rather asymmetric (negative influence not equals positive)? [Edit. Usually agendas are constructed like positive and negative situation, and positive one gives +X and negative one gives -X; this is symmetric; it is possible that e.g. positives would give more or less diplo points than negatives - this is what I call asymmetric]
- Which agendas are erroneous or badly implemented most absurd, but also which you find actually working as intended? [Edit. Sorry, "absurd" is a wrong word because it refers to its concept, and changing the concept is changing the core identity of a given civ, I'd rather hear about its implementation in the game]
- What AI's behaviors you find most stupid or absurd, and conversely which are reasonable and make sense?

Topics that are not related. Please refrain from talking about deals (i.e. buying and selling stuff from AI), city-states (entirely different topic) and if AI in general is good or bad or whatever - there are tons of other topics about that.

Reddit

 

[ezzlar]

AI should be more sceptic at higher difficulties. Smaller positive bonuses and maybe even flat negatives for difficulty.

 

[kaspergm]

I don't think too easy/too hard is the problem (although it may be a bit too easy). It's more that the agenda system screws over the diplomatic game. The fact that Gilgabro is instant friend on turn 1 is the most obvious example of the absurdity of this system, and another notable example in the opposite direction is Harald hating you the entire game for not having a navy even though all your cities are landlocked.

So maybe start with scratching the entire agenda system if you want a meaningful diplomacy in the game.

 

[tedhebert]

I’ve written about it before, and I know you said no city-states, and I’m fairly convinced that this can’t really be changed with modding, but here goes:

I believe that diplo win should include other conditions along with the 20pts. Been scratching my head for a while on WHAT ?

1- tying it in with friendships/alliance system ? The way they work now, it seems to me you don’t have enough control on this to make it work… too rng-ish ? Imagine, for instance, that you make it so you also have to be declared friend or allied with 50% of the other civs ? I think it would be normal to assume that a diplo win would entail being friends with most, but the way the agenda system works, there are some civs that you could never make it work with, like Wilhelmina if far away on huge map for example…

2- another way would be to tie it in with city state suzerainty ! Again, I think it would be normal to assume that a diplo win includes having suzerainty on a certain % of city-states, but what’s the right number ? 50% seems too high, 40% might be more on the mark… Caveat would be Secret Societies with Owls, which is already the preferred choice for most people, which might make this too easy… so maybe change owls on top of that ?

edit: Sorry ipad problems had to save… rest of my post coming up in the next one

 

[tedhebert]

As for answering your questions specifically:

- How easy/hard should it be to befriend or ally a civ?

It should be hard. I Play on Huge maps all the time, so 12 other civs, and I usually have no difficulty being able to get 4 alliances going (I only use military if I'm warring). What IS hard is finding 4 of those within trade route distance, which is the whole deal in the end. Still, I feel it should be harder to make alliances.
I suppose that people playing on smaller maps might not have the same opinion here !

On the other hand, the RNG factor seems a little too high here... Have the wrong enemy civs start in the wrong spot on the map, or playing a different kind game than you (warmongers), and it'll not only be hard but nearly impossible to make it.

- If diplomacy and diplo modifiers should be symmetric or rather asymmetric (negative influence not equals positive)?

I'm sorry, I don't really understand this question ;-(

- Which agendas are most absurd, but also which you find actually working as intended?

All agendas that depends on geographical position on map are absurd to me. Wilhelmina/Elizabeth for starters; Be too far from them for trade routes = never ever become friends. Vicky is also weird on huge maps, chances are we WON'T be on the same continent. Same with Teddy...
Agendas depending on war/peace states annoy me no end because they can't add in the subtlety of who declared on whom ! Alex is he worse... not being at war is bad ? wow... Same with Robert and Teddy
I find agendas like Theodora's a little weird. So she likes culture ? okay... Likes others who like culture ? okay I guess if you want your victory harder ? dislikes civs with low culture, and so are not competing with her ? weird to me... Same with Seondok on science
Saladin and Philip hating you if you have a religion that is not his... I guess it makes loads of sense historically and in real life, but gamewise ? not too sure

Tomyris's agenda is very good in my mind. And ties-in well with a diplo rework imho.
I also think that agenda's related to city-state suzerainty are logical and works well. Same with great people agendas...
Kupe's agenda is annoying in that he keeps sending you way too many messages about it... but in the end it makes sense and the hit seems low

- What AI's behaviors you find most stupid or absurd, and conversely which are reasonable and make sense?

I personally find the malus hit from having different governments from modern era on is WAYYYY to heavy. It's like something around -40 between Democracy and Communism and Facism ? Seems way too much for me. I understand the idea behind it, but... It's game breaking as far as diplomacy goes

Finally: There should be a way to stop an ally from warring your suzed city-states ! It should become a condition to alliance imho. Maybe even with declared friendship, but at the very least with alliance !

 

[rocksinmypath]

I don't have a problem with how easy or difficult it is to befriend an AI initially, but it's a bit silly that you can piss off someone while you're their friend and be able to renew friendship immediately after it expires.

 

[Dragabond]

Mostly what bothers me these days about alliances is that it's now more usual that the AI won't declare friendship again after it expires until a few turns have passed, and then only if they ask.

I've spent countless turns with beautiful relationships with civs that outright refuse friendship for no discernible reason. Their agendas are satisfied, they have (allegedly) favorable trade deals, promises have been kept, etc. And yet they won't be friends. That doesn't scream "good diplomacy" nor does it imply that diplomacy need be harder. There's literally nothing else I could do other than hand them my entire civilization to make them feel better.

 

[Infixo]

I don't think too easy/too hard is the problem (although it may be a bit too easy). It's more that the agenda system screws over the diplomatic game. The fact that Gilgabro is instant friend on turn 1 is the most obvious example of the absurdity of this system, and another notable example in the opposite direction is Harald hating you the entire game for not having a navy even though all your cities are landlocked.

Hm. Gilgamesh's agenda is designed in such a way that it triggers only after you become friends. So, if you befriend him quickly then it is due to other things (gifts, deals, etc.) and not his agenda.
As for Harald, well... you can always settle or conquer coastal cities. My problem with Harald is rather how his agenda compares the navies. You may have very few ships and he'd be happy and sometimes just the opposite.

 

[Infixo]

- If diplomacy and diplo modifiers should be symmetric or rather asymmetric (negative influence not equals positive)?
I'm sorry, I don't really understand this question ;-(

- Which agendas are most absurd, but also which you find actually working as intended?
All agendas that depends on geographical position on map are absurd to me. Wilhelmina/Elizabeth for starters; Be too far from them for trade routes = never ever become friends. Vicky is also weird on huge maps, chances are we WON'T be on the same continent. Same with Teddy...
Agendas depending on war/peace states annoy me no end because they can't add in the subtlety of who declared on whom ! Alex is he worse... not being at war is bad ? wow... Same with Robert and Teddy
I find agendas like Theodora's a little weird. So she likes culture ? okay... Likes others who like culture ? okay I guess if you want your victory harder ? dislikes civs with low culture, and so are not competing with her ? weird to me... Same with Seondok on science
Saladin and Philip hating you if you have a religion that is not his... I guess it makes loads of sense historically and in real life, but gamewise ? not too sure

I've edited the OP and added a bit of explanation what is this "asymmetric" modifier.
Also, about agendas, I probably worded my question wrongly. The agendas are core leader identities, like game concepts. Changing them is ofc possible, but it is not my goal. I'd rather make them working correctly if they don't or maybe adjust modifiers to more reasonable given how usually the game plays out, etc.
As example, if Theodora likes culture then ok. For this discussion it doesn't matter if it helps her or not to win. What matters is how this affects her diplomacy and relations with her. How sensitive she is? Too little, too much, etc. Same with other leaders.

 

[bene_legionary]

Vicky is also weird on huge maps, chances are we WON'T be on the same continent

I think that was the point of the agenda, that she would invade civs on other continents like Britain historically.

 

[Abaxial]

The thing that irks me is that there is no sort of "enemy of my enemy is my friend". If you have caused grievances to anyone everyone dislikes you.

 

[vorlon_mi]

As a sort of opener, would you be so kind and answer the question from the poll.
Some topics that I'd appreciate to hear about.
- How easy or hard should be to befriend or ally a civ?
- If diplomacy and diplo modifiers should be symmetric or rather asymmetric (negative influence not equals positive)? [Edit. Usually agendas are constructed like positive and negative situation, and positive one gives +X and negative one gives -X; this is symmetric; it is possible that e.g. positives would give more or less diplo points than negatives - this is what I call asymmetric]


Topics that are not related. Please refrain from talking about deals (i.e. buying and selling stuff from AI), city-states (entirely different topic) and if AI in general is good or bad or whatever - there are tons of other topics about that.

Reddit

Note: I haven't played with / against enough leaders to comment intelligently about their agendas.

I think that it should be mostly easy to befriend a civ. Doing certain things like sharing a government, conducting trades, giving gifts, should have straightforward, positive modifiers. Some leaders might be less willing to *ally* with me, based on their agenda or their historic personality, but it should be easy to be civil or friendly with them.
Conversely, it should be mostly easy to annoy another civ. Trying to convert their cities; attacking an allied civ or a city-state that they are suzerain; breaking a trade agreement; voting against them in world congress.

I'm OK with asymmetric modifiers. Making a trade agreement that significantly benefits them (say, selling them multiple luxuries for 1 gold) is a plus; breaking that agreement 2 turns later by declaring war on them should be a bigger negative. Breaking a promise once -- a small negative. Breaking a promise two, three times -- a bigger negative. Digging oneself out of a hole should be hard. If I get dragged into a war through an alliance, it should be harder to reconcile with the civ that I fought, once the war is over.

I would really like for negative modifiers to decay after some number of turns. I might have been a warmonger at turn 100, but if I'm peaceful for 50 turns, other civs should have forgotten how violent I was. If I broke a promise or trade agreement, that should not haunt me 150 turns later.

 

[SirNovelty]

- How easy or hard should be to befriend or ally a civ?

For the poll I said, it's a little too easy, but really I think the difficulty somewhat misses the problem. It's not that befriending civs is too easy or difficult, but it feels like something that's completely unrewarding to put concetrated effort towards. If I'm playing a peaceful game, most civs are going to like me, sooner or later, regardless of their agendas. If I'm conquering, everyone's going to hate me, and that's fine, it makes sense. The only grey area is if I'm doing a bunch of conversions, but usually the eventual "same religion" bonus will eventually have them forgive me for indoctrination anyway. Furthermore, the rewards for maintaining positive relationships are pretty low outside of the deals screen. The bonuses from alliances are either weak or way too slow to accumulate, and the only thing I really ever NEED from the AI is Open Borders in a culture game, which they'll give as long as they don't hate me outright or see I'm about to win. All this to say is that outside the early game "please don't attack me" phase, I don't deeply think or put effort towards diplomacy, so the difficulty of succeeding is somewhat immaterial. If you want diplomacy to be engaging, I feel like you're going to have to fiddle with systems like Alliance Points, AI military strategy, and the Deals screen, so that players have a reason to engage. From here on I will try to answer the questions though, rather than just criticize them.

- If diplomacy and diplo modifiers should be symmetric or rather asymmetric (negative influence not equals positive)? [Edit. Usually agendas are constructed like positive and negative situation, and positive one gives +X and negative one gives -X; this is symmetric; it is possible that e.g. positives would give more or less diplo points than negatives - this is what I call asymmetric]

I'd say that should be on a case by case basis. I've never deeply looked at the numbers for agendas myself, but generally I'd say that it should depend on how easy it is to be on the positive and negative side of the bonus, plus how "aggressive" or "friendly" one wants the civ to end up being. I would argue that Monty or Trajan should be much harder to please than Curtin or Kupe for example, civs I picked for the example because of them only Montezuma is not a complete prick in every game I see them in, and that feels wrong.

- Which agendas are erroneous or badly implemented most absurd, but also which you find actually working as intended? [Edit. Sorry, "absurd" is a wrong word because it refers to its concept, and changing the concept is changing the core identity of a given civ, I'd rather hear about its implementation in the game]

I'm gonna scroll through the agendas list on the wiki now and see if any stand out from either experience:
- Gilgamesh: Everyone knows that Gilg is silly, but that's kind of the idea. Although it's mechanically quite stupid it's an endearing part of the game, so while I bring it up, I'm not sure it should be changed. Maybe however he should somehow end up playing more of an aggressive "world police" role, since he's easy to make friends with, and hates people who attack his friends, he should hate anybody being aggressive and rush to people's defense. That would require changes to the military logic to make meaningful though, so I suppose it's off the table.
- Eleanor: I've never understood this bonus thematically. Eleanor should like you for having low pop cities on your border with her, because she can flip them. Not only would this let her use her bonus, but it also makes sense that she would feel no need to war such players, she can annex their stuff anyway. The result here is that she wars when she doesn't have to, and keeps peace when war might be in her interest. It also means she frequently hates players for settling near her, which is exactly what she should want you doing. Furthermore, with the way population works, it tends to be based more on the actual land being settled and player strategy than anything else.
- Gitarja: She always loves you early game, unless you're playing on an archipelago, which feels kind of wrong. I don't know how strong the positive is here, but it could probably do with being weaker, and truth be told I don't even know if I've seen her negative agenda message.
Kristina: I don't know if I've ever seen her positive agenda message. It's not like I always play culture either, the only explanation I can think of for this is that she is one of those leaders I always seem to end up at war with for no reason, so I suppose she just doesn't want to praise me.
-Bull Moose Teddy: Like a lot of the "peace/war" agendas, this feels poorly implemented. He approves of you the moment you meet most of the time, and even if he waves his finger at you during a war, he's right back to approval the turn it ends, so usually his negative is so short-lived as to be meaningless, especially if you're in Friendship or Alliance already. Even in Dom games the war is never nonstop from turn 1 until the end, so I feel like some sort of cooldown should be required.
-Wilhelmina: As everyone says, super spawn dependent, there really should be some modifier for distance, or maybe the negative only triggers if she's sending you a trade route, so she expects reciprocity. Idk.
-Black Queen: I actually really like this one, it always makes sense, and even if I am not going to go out of my way to fulfill it, I know that I can, and it lines up with her bonuses nicely. Whether it be her affection or scorn, Catherine's opinion of me always feels earned and within my control.
-Hojo Tokimune: I almost never get the positive agenda here, and if I do he'll often hate me for other reasons. It feels too specific, and insufficiently impactful on his overall opinion.
Laurier: This simply takes too long to become relevant, his opinion's usually locked by the time this could shift to negative.
Bolivar: Another aggressive civ who will only approve of me if they otherwise hate me.
Amanitore: The "maximum" part of this provision makes it feel incredibly arbitrary, I kind of wish it was based on total number of districts, or average districts per city.
Hammurabi: Hates you for playing the game well. This makes sense since Babylon's gimmick is being stupid and poorly designed. 10/10, would make a separate leader pool to specifically ban just this guy from my games again.
Mbande/Empire Victoria: Super passive for the most part, just not very engaging at all.
Ba Trieu: Cool idea, but in practice civs very few civs forgive you for delcaring a war against them anyway.
Ludwig: Have only played like, one game against him, but I feel like he has the opposite problem of Amanitore.
Menelik: Hills are way too important and ubitquitous to have an agenda around, I know we're not supposed to criticize concepts, but this one has always been stupid.
Robert the Bruce: Another war/peace leader that's too binary, also super easy to please.
Steam Victoria: Super start dependent early, inevitably fulfilled late because the player isn't incompetent.
Poundmaker: If Alliances are coming up, then it's already quite a while into the game and his opinion is likely decided. If I meet him later, whether I can make alliances has already been decided. Poorly considered.
Kupe: I think this is dumb because Kupe doesn't NEED to be giving the player more reasons to hate him, his gimmick does that anyway, but his agenda almost always has him complaining constantly.
Konge Harald: You know this, I don't have to explain this.
Tamar: Players only build walls when attacked, and Georgia's approval is insufficient to change the math on that.
Trajan: As alluded to earlier and otherwise well documented, this agenda causes Rome to usually dislike the player early. Given that they're an early war civ, I think that this actually works out quite nicely.
Curtin: I suppose the agenda is fine, but this guy is always super aggressive anyway for whatever reason, and I will take every opportunity to complain about this pompous prick.
Pachacuti: Super start dependent, and mountains are really common, so I never really know whether I'm in the positive or negative with this guy until I plop the city down.
Montezuma: Actually really good, having Monty as a neighbor genuinely impacts my early game decision-making around luxuries, both in terms of improving them, and trading them. Partly this is due to him being an early war civ, the stage of the game when the whims of the AI are most important, but really I feel like he's one of the better examples of an engaging agenda period.
Gorgo: Functional, but incredibly annoying. Furthermore, it's not an agenda the player is ever going to go out of their way to fulfill the positive of, because declaring wars to make white peace is bad for diplomacy anyway, not to mention it's a waste of resources. Just a terrible civ to play with.
Yongle: Super boring, exceedingly rare that I ever run a deficit in this game, and if I do I have much bigger problems than Yongle not liking me. As a matter of fact, that's probably not a problem, because realistically the only time I'd be running a deficit is during a Dom game, so Yongle will not like me regardless.

- What AI's behaviors you find most stupid or absurd, and conversely which are reasonable and make sense?

I guess I've kinda gone into that, but one general note is that I really can't figure out how big a part agendas are supposed to play in diplomacy. Whenever I get reprimanded by a life-long ally, or praised by a sworn enemy, for some arbitrary aspect of my empire, it always feels super bizarre, because it never affects the total relationship enough to change it. I feel like those messages shouldn't pop up (obviously the modifier can still be listed) if they don't match the leader's current opinion, this by itself would help tremendously with the "feel" of the AI.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

Whenever I get reprimanded by a life-long ally, or praised by a sworn enemy, for some arbitrary aspect of my empire, it always feels super bizarre, because it never affects the total relationship enough to change it.

Your post is so long and thorough that there are tons of things I agree with and would love to share my thoughts on, but for right now I just want to comment on this.

I feel this way a lot. It’s such sudden whiplash to see Trajan go “Small empire? How disappointing… can’t you do any better?” and then return to his smiling friendly face.

It really makes the AI seem erratic and breaks any suspension of disbelief in their personalities.

As if the AI leaders didn’t already have problems with that (they all act the same)

 

[kaspergm]

Hm. Gilgamesh's agenda is designed in such a way that it triggers only after you become friends. So, if you befriend him quickly then it is due to other things (gifts, deals, etc.) and not his agenda.

Can't speak for how it's coded, but with Gilgamesh, you can always - always - get a DoF going if you ask him on the very turn that you meet him. That is not the case with the other leaders, so there's definitely something related to his ability/agenda playing in here. It could be that he has a strong positive modifier towards making DoF, which makes sense in terms of his abilities, but sort of doesn't make a lot of sense in terms of game immersion overall.

 

[borad]

My main complaint is that once you get friendships/alliances it’s very hard to lose them, no matter how evil you are to everyone else. I guess if you’re a pure builder type you’ll like that advantage, but it does take a big edge out of the game, as does the inability to back-stab friends. Back-stabbing friends (not Alliance members) should be allowed where the victim has passed a certain level of grievances -- yes, that will likely require more balancing of the grievance system, and should in turn substantially affect grievances towards the aggressor).

I miss the legit epic World Wars in Civ 4, which were commonly triggered by religion. Maybe I’d like them less with the micro-management of war via 1UPT. Secret Societies have helped balkanise the world a bit, but not harshly enough (also, are there stats for the split of Societies chosen by AIs -- the size of each faction thus created are presumably quite different?)

(For context, I play up to Diety level, but with the Persistent Difficulty mod to remove their huge starting list of units.)

P.S. I love Gilgabro. It’s like getting a quality early goody hut.

 

[Aurelesk]

My main complaint is that AI have no real behavior. Gilgamesh gimmick is supposed to be: ally with someone, conquer the world together, then do a fraternal duel to decide the winner. Basically, Gilgamesh should be friendly toward one Civilization as long it is following his Joint War. So his Agenda would be more like: Like Civilization willing to do Joint War with him or fighting a common enemy, dislike those who refuse those Joint Wars or are at peace to the Civilization he is at war with (hidden: only friendly toward 1 civilization at a time, suddenly hate it if there is only 1 civilization left).

Eleanor is really weird, as her behavior should be more around to acquire a lot of Great Work and conquer its neighbor peacefully. She has no bonuses as either England or France toward growing cities, Food, or the like. She wants Populous cities near her, which is hard to conquer. So I don't know if it is on purpose, or not.

The leaders don't seem to have a behavior or a strategy, and feel more victim of modifiers. There is no long-term plans. For example, Cultural civilization should dislike the most Cultural opponent, even more if they are running away, as it makes their victory harder. Yet, they should also dislike Civilizations wiping out other civilizations, as it means less Tourism to apply on. So they should be more prone to wage war in order to Liberate some cities, while also prone to wage war against Cultural civilization in order to reduce their influence.

Agenda can be a good thing when you need an immediate shift of relationship so the Leaders could be more "predatory". For example, if Harald "Viking" see there are a lot of Coastal improvement yet no navy, then he should be able to jump on the occasion and pillage all that. Or when Genghis Khan knows you have plenty of Cavalry to steal. Yet... it isn't the case. Why would Seondeok would like Civilizations with high Science, since she has no real abilities to leech that Science anyway. Shouldn't she want to be the only one having the Science advantage instead? Sure, it is thematic for her "personality", yet her personality harms her gameplan.

The World Congress and the Diplomatic Victory is another problem, as they don't make sense and are clunky. On paper, it is: "the Civilization that agreed to apply the same resolution or doing the most "effort" on emergency is more likely to be seen more fitting for being World Leader". Yet... World leadership is more an economical domination with the ability to assert their view with an army. That is how England then USA and probably China soon was, is and will be seen as dominant. In a sense, Civilization V where the victory was around how much money you could throw at City-States was more thematic than being "right" on several vote, even if Diplomatic Favor represent well the "Influence" a civilization can have, so that a Civilization can push a policy against most people will... yet those policies are decided randomly.

To answer the question, befriending or making alliance is not too difficult if you aim for them when you meet them. Except if the bad impression is -12, as long a Delegation is sent and Open Borders are shared, there is high chance to have a Friend for the whole game. Sometime it takes more effort, so giving 200 Gold for a +10 modifier to "favorable trade" tend to do the trick.
If is more that once a Civilization is friendly, it is friendly for the whole game, but once a fow, forever a fow as well (sure it can sometimes be reversible, but not that's the spirit).

 

[Dotsworthy]

My two cents:

I don't mind agendas as they add a bit of flavour to each leader. I do think though that the modifier is too high and I personally would like to see a +/- 1 or 2 points difference to a civs opinion rather than 6 or even 10.

The biggest problem for me, as other people have mentioned, is that once you become friends with an AI they will be friends/allies for the rest of the game. As long as you remember to renew friendships on the turn they expire, the AI very very rarely reject it (and will pretty much accept on the next turn). Even if you wrack up grievances left right and center, or have tonnes of negative modifiers.

You can only really screw up if you forget to renew and leave it for 5-6 turns. I'm not sure what the fix is. What I'd like is for AI to have the potential to turn on you as the game progresses.

 

[MrRadar]

My main complaint is that AI have no real behavior.

This sums it all up. AI has no purpose, plan or aim. They all play the same, every and each one of them, in the same, erratic, clueless way, they just have different bonuses for different yields, but that's it. And that is quite a difficult state of affairs to build a diplomatic system on.

The biggest problem for me, as other people have mentioned, is that once you become friends with an AI they will be friends/allies for the rest of the game. As long as you remember to renew friendships on the turn they expire, the AI very very rarely reject it (and will pretty much accept on the next turn). Even if you wrack up grievances left right and center, or have tonnes of negative modifiers.

Yes, and I'm already tired enough to repeat this. Declarations of Friendship as they are in Civ VI are the end to all diplomacy. Agendas and DoFs just kill it on the spot, very early in the game and for good. AI becomes nothing more to the player than a bugged ATM to milk and exploit.

I will maintain that the best diplomacy in the franchise wasis in Civ IV. I'd say, AI leaders have more personality with traits and behavior modifiers in IV than here, with those rigid agendas and fixed yield bonuses. In IV, your actions translate into diplomatic modifiers which decide in what diplomatic stance you find yourself at the current turn. Only pleased or even only friendly stance guarantees peace, but you can drop out of that stance in a blink of an eye. You must be aware of what is happening in the world and make an active effort to be in the right camp. Religion plays a huge role early on, but later it loses diplomatic weight and shifts it in into the cultural sphere, very elegant. Religious alliances are gradually replaced by vassal system. All the time, something loses importance, something else gains it, in the place of the former. It brings some dynamism. The whole dioplomatic situation in the world can turn around on the dime within a turn. But in VI the diplomatic system just promotes stagnation and rigidity.

If only the leaders' agendas were something like policy trees in V, developing, evolving and branching out with each passing era. Then there would be some possibility of variety from game to game. Start from small, Harald, just with an ambition to settle next to some water: river, lake or sea in the Ancient era, and like or dislike people who do the same or don't. Come Classical, choose your doctrines: will you put faith into brute mass of melee naval force or use speed and distance of the ranged ones more? In Medieval will you keep coastal going force, where it is safer, or will you venture off the shore, where some of your ships may never come back? Yes, that can get really complicated really fast. So I think traits from IV are better for simplicity sake

In VI, with the current system, I don't really know what it is possible to change with mods. Can you ditch the unbreakablility of the DoFs and alliances? DF is an interesting concept and, I think, it is wasted on being merely a trading commodity for gold, on top of voting where it is not so much needed, given the current voting patterns. And the World Congress with the current voting patterns is quite a tragedy as well. Can it be coded that civs could use DF to decide which issues are put on the agenda of the next session? A combination of the same DF and total number of pops in a civ to decide the number of votes that each civ could cast? And the whole WC thing not happening automatically, but rather formed for a (DF or gold) price by some civ, for a certain privilege, perhaps? Membership costing some entrance fee but giving some benefits in return? Resolutions could be breached, defied or violated, balancing risk and reward? DV points not from voting with the crowd and from some silly wonders, but from something cumulative, such as the size of the economy, trade routes number, attracted GPs number, military power, number of liberated cities - CS and AI cities alike, religious and cultural influence, something like that. Diplomatic win could be a bit from every other victory condition, not quite enough to win a separate one in that particular sphere, but taken cumulatively it should be enough to confirm that you dominate the world stage.

 

[Futumch]

I'd like the agendas more if they had some sort of falloff relating to distance, or paid more attention to geography. Chandragupta's agenda actually ticks those boxes perfectly.
One thing I really dislike is how the AI mysteriously knows about cities you've razed before you even meet them for the first time. Friendly meeting followed by denouncement next turn is a bit of a head scratcher. They also know the intricacies of your city layouts, infrastructure, gold per turn, science advances. All things that YOU (puny human player) require a spy or scout to discover.
On the whole I think the agendas are a mixed bag. They add colour and flavour to the various leaders, but quite often they're more of a hassle to satisfy than they should be.

Also, how come they get an agenda or two and I don't?