Those Civs the AI sucks with/Is awesome with

[Teksura]

I've started noticing a pattern in a lot of games I play and wanted to compare notes with others.

It's pretty normal in a game to see one or two AI civs build up into a powerhouse, and then see one or two who are about 2 eras behind and struggling to break even on their GPT. But I've noticed that often, it's the same civs who fall into those roles.




America, in my opinion, doesn't have great bonuses unless you're maybe planning for a late game domination victory. So I'm lost trying to figure out what makes it such a powerhouse in every game I see the AI in control of it. I always see Washington expand into a powerful empire with a terrifuing military.

Russia actually makes sense to me. It has some really good bonuses and always seems to turn into a frightening powerhouse later in the game.

Carthage doesn't have terrible bonuses I always thought, but every game play wth Dido always ends up with her at 0 gold and a negative GPT sometime in the industrial era, and I never see her recover from this.


The Huns have amazing early game bonuses I always thought. I'd think this should give them at least some advantage early on. But I always see Attila just sort of stagnate sometime in the renaissance era and he just stops being significant after that.



Has anyone else noticed any patterns where the same AI controlled civ always seems to do really good or really bad in a game?

[droptops]

i)Iroquois in my last 2 games in immortal always make an astonishing start..building every wonder growing up like hell in population and being first or second in soldiers...ii)moreover i have never seen Austria doing something good except from the start of industrial era and even then she stays behind ....iii)China always bloom at the early game founding like 10 cities and still holds the first place in the leaderboard and in approval ..iv)The Shoshone..they just fail ,,they expand like china but their gpt and approval is less than -10 every time....

And i tottaly agree with The huns , they make sometimes a almost-good start but since industrial era they are just improved land for us and others civs without any particular difficulty in capturing theirs cities. (always reffering in immortal and emperor level)

[Burbot]

Some of them do seem to always do better than others. Poland always seems to run away in my games.

But I think it has more to do with their starts than anything. I usually study the leading civ's start once I meet them. Almost always the leaders get great start locations with plenty of luxuries and a nice mix of food and production. And if those starts play into their unique bonuses then they really rock.

[leandrombraz]

The thing is that even if the AI is trying to win, their personality give them a specific role, so they will have tendency to fall into similar situations in every match. For example, Greece always try diplomatic and go for the city states like there's no tomorrow, so they always end up having trouble with everyone because of the CS and might get more than they can take. If they don't fall for a stronger civ (or several), they might be a problem at end game if you have no inttention to go into war, since they are good at diplomatic and can actually win through it. If Austria is in the match, they will go for CS too, which will give Greece a hard time taking CS.

[Mashsmouth]

I find it surprising to find a civ that has money and a positive GPT. There's always one civ that has it all, though. Wonders, tech, everything.

[BoogieMan]

Most of my games are usually lopsided like that as well. It's basically a contest between me and like 2 AI players in a 10 player game. Everyone else is just speedbumps for the top 3.

And yes, often it's the same empires that are the powerful ones.

[dotdotok]

I`ve noticed in my games that Attila is always a backstabbing ♥♥♥♥ and Zulu is a ♥♥♥♥, and that Siam is the guy to know.

[Assassin]

Quite frankly, the iroquois are the hardest civ to play against in my opinion. Regardless of how early the zulus, mongolians or other warmongery civs rush you, you can survive. The iroquois have this knack for putting out like 6 cities, being at positive happiness (and high happiness at that), a massive GPT, and somehow manage to put out a nice majority of the wonders, even with an AI egypt in the game :D

Worst AI would probably have to be Catherine, IMO... Usually about renaissance/late medieval on she goes into a permanent -50 or worse gpt (seen -156 as a low, not sure *how* you get that far down) and she never really recovers.

[Washtali]

Attila does badly because he is very agressive early on, so other civs gang up on him. If he doesn't stay strong and win early he will flounder for the rest of the game and usually be insignificant. And he is a douche always backstabbing too. Never ally befriend him because he is almost never loyal.

I agree with the consensus about the Iroquois, Hiawatha does very well.

Suleiman I find is mostly harmless. Unless you are playing Archipelago or something similar he doesn't offer much resistance. Also I find that Indonesia and Polynesia have a tendency to get invaded.

[Crim]

Note - AI being at negative gold per turn doesn't really affect them anymore

They removed most of the negative effects of it for the AI since a player discovered he could get the AI to open borders then spam roads in AI borders which would screw up the AI for the rest of the game

[Teksura]

Originally posted by Talamare:

a player discovered he could get the AI to open borders then spam roads in AI borders which would screw up the AI for the rest of the game

LOL. That guy is my hero.

[Fallsondoor]

Originally posted by Talamare:

Note - AI being at negative gold per turn doesn't really affect them anymore

They removed most of the negative effects of it for the AI since a player discovered he could get the AI to open borders then spam roads in AI borders which would screw up the AI for the rest of the game

dont you have to pay for said roads

[leandrombraz]

Originally posted by Washtali:

Attila does badly because he is very agressive early on, so other civs gang up on him. If he doesn't stay strong and win early he will flounder for the rest of the game and usually be insignificant. And he is a douche always backstabbing too. Never ally befriend him because he is almost never loyal.

I agree with the consensus about the Iroquois, Hiawatha does very well.

Suleiman I find is mostly harmless. Unless you are playing Archipelago or something similar he doesn't offer much resistance. Also I find that Indonesia and Polynesia have a tendency to get invaded.

IMO it's pratically impossible for warmonger civs to win (unless it's a match with feel civs and you play really badly) and hard for them to actually get strong exactly because of that. Warmonger civs are there only to mess things up and they are a challenge only if they are your neighbor.

[Kram Noollow]

Yeh. Iroqois are always a ♥♥♥♥♥. Always settle right on your borders, with supreb boyancy in their happiness despite the cities and lack of luxuries to support them. They ALWAYS have terrain set for their bonuses, and have a colossal, well updated millitary to boot. Like you said, apart from Shaka (IME) warmongers like Genghis, Attila and Harald really flop if they dont conquer others to gain their bonuses (land, not the ablitites for all you nitpickers). Ive seen Mongolia just sit with one city, and never build millitary or ANYTHING. They were on the same continent as Attlia, whom did the same. This was King mind.

[Curtiola]

A good solution for the AI being too predictable is to turn on random personalities for world leaders.

[leandrombraz]

Originally posted by }-Risk.Of.Injury-{:

A good solution for the AI being too predictable is to turn on random personalities for world leaders.

imo this is part of the fun. You know who they are when you see them and can plan accordingly. Its like playing against human players that you know, you learn to predict what they might do.