Relax some of the agendas

[Janskey]

I was just reading this thread https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/what-does-alexander-want-from-me.620799/ and I've been somewhat annoyed by similar mishaps. Alex literally comes complaining the moment you make peace. Like he has spies all over and once a spy tells him you've just wiped out X, he's like "so you're not fighting anymore, what kind of sissy are you?"

It's the same with Kongo. I think the agenda requirements are "met 30 turns ago", "has found religion" and "has not spread said religion". So if you meet him early and get a religion later, it's instant hate. At least he should give you a reasonable time frame for a missionary to get there.

Also, Rome on deity. "Where's your empire?"

IMO agendas should have some sort of a buffer period. I.e. you wouldn't get someone praising you for going with their agenda one turn and complaining for the same reason the very next turn. Just ~5 turns would make it feel more natural and less schizophrenic. In the case of Alex/war this could be slightly longer, maybe 30 turns or so.

 

[Morningcalm]

Agreed that they are a bit extreme. On higher difficulties it's almost pointless to try and satisfy the AI agendas, and they war on you so often that your gameplay road becomes very one note (mostly, it's preparing for war and killing people so you have breathing space).

 

[Raz.BELOVED]

I think most of the agendas also shouldn't even be the way they are right now, to an extent they barely make sense. It can cause half the civs to hate you just for playing the game and for half the civs to love you just for playing the game. I'm pretty sure gilgamesh and teddy just like you after a certain point if they doesn't surprise/joint war you and you dont purposefully piss him off. I feel like they should be changed to be less like 'I hate you for xyz' and more 'I'm gonna try to do this and I'll hate you if you try to interfere'. I don't play on higher difficulties though so maybe its different up there.

 

[Janskey]

No, it's the same on deity (maybe Pedro and Qin are easier to please, since you won't be hogging all the wonders and great people) and yeah, it is kind of stupid that you'd have to play badly on purpose to be friends with certain leaders. If there was a huge benefit from doing so, things might be different. I also think they shouldn't be such hypocrites, e.g. someone who just conquered three city states starts complaining when you capture one.

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

One sanity check the agendas need is, if they are looking for your civ to not be lacking in some form of output, the hate can only trigger if their civ is not also doing worse than you.

But figuring out how to make Mvemba give you a fair shake seems nontrivial.

 

[RFormica]

I think that, also, some leaders need to let go some of the things you have done. I had started a war with Brazil around 2010 AD, and conquered them around 2050 AD. At 2150 AD (Which is a lot in late game!) everybody was bothering me about it, even the leaders who didn't care about warmongering. I also met much of the agenda criterion for many of them; I had the largest empire in the game by far (Trajan) hadn't built many wonders (Qin) and Saladin had converted me a very long time ago. I had given every one many gifts and kept promises. Plus, they were being hypocritical: One turn Trajan nukes the Aztecs and the next he denounces me for being a warmonger... just let it go!

OK, maybe that was just a bit of a rage-fueled rant, but my point remains...