1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Some of these counter-agendas make no sense at all

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by qadams, Oct 9, 2018.

  1. qadams

    qadams Bohemian

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2014
    Messages:
    573
    Location:
    Ruritania
    A few examples...

    Catherine de Medici (France): Gains as many Spies and as much diplomatic access as possible. Does not like civilizations who ignore these espionage activities.

    Huh? Why would she want other leaders to focus on spying when that will just make her job more difficult??​

    Trajan (Rome): Tries to include as much territory as possible in his empire. Does not like civilizations who control little territory.

    But, but, wait — if Trajan wants to control territory, why would he dislike leaders who make his agenda easier to accomplish??​

    Shaka (Zulu): Tries to form as many Corps and Armies as possible, and likes those who follow his lead. Dislikes civilizations with few Corps and Armies.

    So, you mean he likes leaders who will build strong militaries that he'll have trouble defeating? Um, what??​

    _________

    On the other hand, something like this makes a lot of sense...​

    Genghis Khan (Mongols): Builds a strong cavalry force, and likes those who do not compete in cavalry. Dislikes civilizations who rival him in cavalry strength.

    _________

    It appears to me that the designers of those other Civs (France, Rome, Zulu) didn't quite understand the whole concept of agenda. And it's a bit disappointing that these things haven't been fixed yet, after all this time.
     
    Civrinn likes this.
  2. Trav'ling Canuck

    Trav'ling Canuck Warlord Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2018
    Messages:
    2,782
    Gender:
    Male
    That raises a good question of what these counter agendas are intended to accomplish.

    Let's take Trajan's. I think it works very well. If you have a small territory, he views you as possible prey. Therefore he dislikes you, which should mean he is more likely to go to war with you. If you rival him in territory, though, he'll be more wary of you and be willing to be friendly.

    Shaka's counter agenda works as well, under this logic. No corps/armies, I'm more likely to beat you in a war, therefore a negative relationship modifier.

    Genghis' is tougher to assess. However, considering he can capture cavalry units from other civs, disliking, and therefore going to war more likely with, a civ that also has a lot of cavalry units may make sense.

    Catherine's works better on that logic now that increased diplomatic access comes with a combat bonus. If negative relationships trigger more Spy activity (not sure they do), it would also make more sense for Catherine to dislike - and therefore target - civs that are behind her in the espionage game.
     
    Tech Osen, Gorbles, MrRadar and 3 others like this.
  3. Cedbird77

    Cedbird77 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2017
    Messages:
    111
    Gender:
    Male
    Great explanation. Canuck. Also I would say simply. Why do women like the bad guy and not the good guys? Does not always make sense. Just is

    That adds flavor to the game.
     
  4. Halcyan2

    Halcyan2 Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 12, 2012
    Messages:
    1,377
    I think it makes perfect sense.

    There are two modes of thought here. Some leaders (and people) like those who value the same things and think like them (even if they could be potential competition). Some leaders (and people) like those who are not competing for the same things.

    People with similar personalities and interests often get along because they understand each other and are better able to establish rapport.

    Also, if part of your self identity is based on a particular strength/feature, you will also respect those who share that strength and find those who lack it to be weak (even if they technically aren't a threat to you as a result).
     
  5. Rambo919

    Rambo919 Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    142
    You misunderstand the intent of the agenda's. It was not meant to make the AI competitive but to make it seem more human.... the counter agenda's are basically the result of contempt for those that do not emphasize the one thing the particular civ finds most important.... basically it signals that the civ believes you to be inferior and hates you for emotional/irrational rather than logical/victory reasons.
     
    Rup likes this.
  6. Disgustipated

    Disgustipated Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    10,869
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Indonesia's agenda makes the most sense. Since she wants those islands for herself, she won't want you to settle them.

    I can see the argument above for Rome and I never thought of it like that. It makes sense that you having a small empire will make him more likely to denounce and later attack you since you would be weaker. But someone who is strong (in terms of number of cities) like himself he respects.
     
  7. Scaramanga

    Scaramanga Brickhead

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,965
    Location:
    Canada
    They make sense in that the AI can't walk into a confrontation that is less favourable to them.
     
  8. acluewithout

    acluewithout Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2017
    Messages:
    2,380
    I don’t think like or dislike is meant to actually mean like or dislike. It’s more “less likely to war with” or “more likely to war with”. It’s very misleading language.

    So, Catherine and Harold don’t war with you because they “dislike” you for not having Spies or a Navy (as the case may be). They war with you because you don’t have Spies or a Navy so they think they’re more likely to beat you.

    Genghis wars with you if you have Cav, because you’re a threat and also he can steal your horses.

    Wilhelmina wars with you if you don’t send trade routes, because she values trade routes. If you don’t have them, you’re dead to her.

    FXS should never have used like or dislike. They should have described the agenda for what it is, and then just said more likely to war less likely to war based on x.

    eg Genghis Agenda “Gemghis targets Civs with Cavalry to boost his army (more likely to war with or oppose Civs with more cavalry than him).”

    Wilhelmina “Wilhelmina values trade relationships and friendship (less likely to war or oppose Civs that send trade routes to her)”.
     
    Duuk likes this.
  9. MrRadar

    MrRadar Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    778
    Or just "respects" and "disrespects". Didn't FXS actually use these words, btw?


    Oh my, this rhymes so good with this expression:

    Spoiler :



    :lol:
     
    Trav'ling Canuck likes this.
  10. ezzlar

    ezzlar Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2001
    Messages:
    1,549
    What I think is strange is the issue wether the AI is playing to win or not. If it does, some of the agendas are really stupid and counter intuitive. If they are there for flavour and immersion it would be more understandable.
     
  11. acluewithout

    acluewithout Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2017
    Messages:
    2,380
    I can’t remember, but you might be right. I think respect is also potentially a bit misleading though. I think FXS should have expressed agendas as actual personality traits or default goals, and then just explained what that means in terms of behaviour (per my examples).

    The AI does a bit of both. It plays to be interesting and challenging. So, it sort of tries to win, but it also tries to create interesting situations and mess stuff up. It must be a tricky thing to program and to have it feel “right”.
     
  12. DJ_Tanner

    DJ_Tanner Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2013
    Messages:
    990
    Could be both though. People tend to like their contemporaries, even if they compete with them. People that have similar accomplishments have likely gone through similar challenges. So while we may complete over the same land Trajan knows I have faced the same problems he has to grow an empire to this size, and (since most people tend to like themselves) I must be impressive, just like he is. On the other side, those who are dislike him are not even worthy of a second thought. They have other priorities (worse priorities) and, therefore, must be idiots.
     
    SammyKhalifa likes this.
  13. SammyKhalifa

    SammyKhalifa Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2003
    Messages:
    4,858
    i'm fine with something less than a pure "playing to win" ai. I don't really want everyone to declare war on me at the same time because I'm "winning" even though I'd been friends the whole time, for example.
     
    acluewithout likes this.
  14. Aristos

    Aristos Lightseeker

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    3,575
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Deep inside...
    It works as a target-painter. Although it sounds counter-intuitive some times, as in your examples, the idea is that "dislike = potential next target". If you see it that way, it starts to make sense.
     
    acluewithout likes this.
  15. acluewithout

    acluewithout Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2017
    Messages:
    2,380
    Agreed.

    I really do think a big problem with Diplomacy is just it isn’t visualised very well.

    For example, I think in EU4 there’s a filter where you can select a country and then other countries are coloured based on whether they like that country or not. Something like that for Civ would be Super helpful, as would something on the TOP ribbon summarising what’s going on with you and each leader (yes, there’s a mod that does that).

    Explaining agendas better would also help, as would giving AI perks based in their agendas because I think that would help emphasise to the player what each Agenda is about.

    Lastly, the AI really need to somehow share information with the player. More shared visibility, but also maybe the AI telling you what are the agendas of other AI, and perhaps AI actually declaring to you their plans about other Civs. (e.g. Harold “We must wipe the or Qing “We are the kingdom of heaven! (Qing wants to build the Great Pyramids)”).

    Honestly. You have to do too much Detective work to figure out what’s going on. No wonder people complain the AI is irrational - you can’t see anything that is happening until the AI “suddenly” declares war.
     
  16. qadams

    qadams Bohemian

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2014
    Messages:
    573
    Location:
    Ruritania
    Yes, that was my essential point in the OP. In too many cases, the language of the agendas is highly unclear, confusing and frustrating for the player. I still don't understand why they can't just fix this stuff.
     
    acluewithout likes this.
  17. Aristos

    Aristos Lightseeker

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    3,575
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Deep inside...
    And what mod would that be? :D
     
    acluewithout likes this.

Share This Page