Catherine always gives me a truck load of problems.

I often play on high levels, given her traits (Imp & Cre) she is always able to grab plenty of good land + lots of resources early, with AI bonus, she is always ahead in techs and she always build a HUGE army. She is very aggressive. In 2 games she invaded me first, the 2nd game, she came with massive Cossacks and canons+Rifles+Granadiers. It was good i had sentries near her largest cities to witness the whole build up so i had been preparing for the onslaught. It was still scary to see multiple 20+ Cossacks/Canons stacks in her 2 cities.

I learned a lesson, gotta kill her if she were my neighbor, and before she get Cossacks@! But it is probably even better to Vassle her and use her as your war allies. That is why I always keep my vassles strong by gifting them stuff and leaving them with plenty of good cities.

I agree about Catherine. I always have problems with her as well. She never seems to like me very much and she can do a pretty quick landgrab. Once she gets cossacks, you're in trouble. I usually try to take her out early on, or at least cripple her.

General Failure

Catherine and Kublia Khan are the ones who are always winning.

Catherine always gives me a truck load of problems.

I often play on high levels, given her traits (Imp & Cre) she is always able to grab plenty of good land + lots of resources early, with AI bonus, she is always ahead in techs and she always build a HUGE army. She is very aggressive. In 2 games she invaded me first, the 2nd game, she came with massive Cossacks and canons+Rifles+Granadiers. It was good i had sentries near her largest cities to witness the whole build up so i had been preparing for the onslaught. It was still scary to see multiple 20+ Cossacks/Canons stacks in her 2 cities.

I learned a lesson, gotta kill her if she were my neighbor, and before she get Cossacks@! But it is probably even better to Vassle her and use her as your war allies. That is why I always keep my vassles strong by gifting them stuff and leaving them with plenty of good cities.

I find that Cathy and Stalin both build HUGE HUGE armies!! Stalin invaded me once from the other continent, he had 4 stacks of destroyers/transports with atleast 25+ infantry/Cossacks/Cannons each!!
The scary part is that i had just only got to riflemen and i had only 1 destroyer :( . I quit becuase i cudnt bare to watch my empire being massacred.

My most hated competitors...

*War: Cathy, Kublai, Montezuma, Shaka

When Monty and Shaka appear in my games I must hold my head in anguish.

*Peace: Gandhi, Asoka, Hannibal, Washington (the "regular" Fin-Org one)

I personally hate it when they out-tech me and decide at one point to stop trading. Then they pull away and threaten to win by space, while their tech lead makes it difficult to invade them.

I actually like Monty or Shaka in my games, cause they do not have the imperial trait so they are usually much weaker than Cathy when they decided to declare war on my. Their UUs are weaker too so they serve good purpose for me to train my troops and getting the GGs without damaging my diplo points :)

Just wait until you see Catherine after she gets patched up. Faster libraries + Stronger generals. :o

Just wait until you see Catherine after she gets patched up. Faster libraries + Stronger generals. :o


I agree.

Poor Katy. She was a bull in the first version, then they nerfed her Coassacks and took away her power traits. Now, they are putting her on steroids again. That poor woman. No wonder she prefers the company of horses to men.

For the AIs on higher levels with all their reasearch and Production bonuses, the Imp & Cre combo are actually extremely powerful. It almost garantees that Cathy gets a huge chunk of prime land + resources early on.

Since the AIs have the most efficient "underground" tech trading, It does not really need Financial to stay ahead. Plus Cathy always emphasizes building a huge up-to-date army, she always poses the biggest threat for the human players.

That is why many players find that she frequently win the game.

The AIs don't use the Military bonues as well as the players, for them numbers are more important than quality. Organized, phi, Ind, Exp, Spi are also not so useful to them.

At Emperor and above, I could not think of a more powerful combo than Imp+Cre(Catherine) for the AIs.

I agree.

Poor Katy. She was a bull in the first version, then they nerfed her Coassacks and took away her power traits. Now, they are putting her on steroids again. That poor woman. No wonder she prefers the company of horses to men.

Well, many race horses are also put on steroids... I say that would still be "poor woman"...or maybe not. But let's not explore that too far... :D

General Failure

But it is probably even better to Vassle her and use her as your war allies.

I don't know if it's possible to vassalize Catherine. (I'd like to hear from anyone who has managed to!). She is my enemy #1 too. In my current game, I kept on checking her trade screen all the way until she had one injured pikeman left in her last city. She still would not capitulate.

I have, however, seen her offer herself as a vassal to another civ. In my previous game, I was almost ready to take her capital when she vassalized herself to Isabella! Then they declared war on me 5 turns later and wiped me out, even though I had the same religion as they did (but that's another story!). Also another story is the fact that I really hate it when civs vassalize themselves to third parties before you can finish them off or vassalize them yourself. Especially when it's really powerful third parties sharing a border with you.

Cathy voulunteered to become a vassal state to me, without even a fight. But I play on the easy levels :).

Cathy voulunteered to become a vassal state to me, without even a fight. But I play on the easy levels :).

Cool, now there's an incentive to bump it down a notch for a game or two. I'm currently struggling on Monarch.

I find myself growing progressively hateful of Mansa, Asoka and Gandhi - I usually spark up some wars to slow down their seemingly inevitable tech lead. I also hate all financial civs - nothing gives me more pleasure than frying those capitalist swines with my soldiers' Marxist fervour (although if my State Religion is Islam or Judaism, I trade the pigs for something a little more Halal/Kosher).

I don't know if it's possible to vassalize Catherine

Try offering her horses in exchange for vassalage...she'll probably sign without even looking at the treaty.

Try offering her horses in exchange for vassalage...she'll probably sign without even looking at the treaty.

LOL. Problem is, though, that her Imperialistic/Creative combination almost always ensures that she gets horses on her own. In my current game, she even sent a galley all the way over to the opposite end of my peninsula to plop a settler next to the horse there. At least I got my vengeance though, since Christianity was founded there a few turns later, and as soon as she declared war on me, I sent a couple Swordsmen to take out the lone guarding Archer :).

Unless you are nice to Catherine, she will mass you. I learned this back in Vanilla CIv....if she asks you for somen, give it to her unless you want to simulate the SPanish/Native American battles, where you are the Spanish and Native America actually has modern units.

Unless you are nice to Catherine, she will mass you. I learned this back in Vanilla CIv....if she asks you for somen, give it to her unless you want to simulate the SPanish/Native American battles, where you are the Spanish and Native America actually has modern units.

Yeah, and she asks for stuff ALL THE TIME. She must have that in her XML attributes or something.

As soon as I discover Literature, it's "Hi, can I please have your Literature so I can beat you to the Great Library?" etc.

The cottage spammers are toughest leaders, the American + Indian leaders
and Frederick. If you're playing continents and those guys are at the
other continent you'll be happy if Montezuma or Alexander is there too. :D

I observed that! Cathy is always getting so much land each game! She is always either at the top of the whole 'pack' or close to it. And she's no pushover, she builds, as you said, a huge army.

I generally find Stalin and Shaka to be pushovers. But I always switch to Vassalage + Organized Religion (or is it Theocracy) to add +4 XP to my units as they're being built. The AI does a poor job with promotions.

Whenever I declare war on an AI neighbor, I have my assault stack ready to go (usually 20-40 units). Then I wait to see where they're going to send their stack-of-doom, reinforce that location with my stack and watch their stack shatter against my city walls. After the carnage (we're talking cases where the AI loses 8:1 or worse), my stack-of-death moves out and starts capturing city after city until the AI capitulates.

Mansa is a pain due to the tech lead. Whenever I have him next door, I play nice but try to grab any copper/iron resources before he can settle near them. Keep him resource poor and he makes a nice buffer civilization between me and my other opponents.

(I only play as Tokugawa.)

Monte is simply amusing to me now. I can outbuild him or convince other civs to go after him because he's so annoying to everyone.

Am I the only one who has ever been impressed by Hapsy ? Sometimes she manages to get a huge lead in everything : tech, land, army. It doesn't happen often but I've seen it two or three times and it's the only leader I've ever really worried about on Noble. I remember a vanilla game where she was so totally dominating our continent that it wasn't even funny. And she can go berserk on religion too : if you're an unfaithful, she might very well crush you like a bug.

Monty is just a pain in the a** because you know he will attack you anyway (in one year of playing I can remember only one game where he didn't attack me and it was because I was bribing him to attack everybody else), the tech runners are really dangerous sometimes but very rarely aggressive, but believe me or not it's Hapsy I'm being careful with at the beginning of a game.

Alexander + Augustus just started the mother of all wars against me (monarch/huge/marathon) without any warning. They had gathered huge armies under cover and I did not pay any attention to them, because they were not annoyed with me or anything like that. Then out of the blue I hear the sound of the war horn. Those backstabbing b*stards :mad:

Now I've had few years with 100+ battles per turn in sea, land and air, all around the globe. I'm really struggling to survive right now. It has been maybe the best game of Civ I've ever played because of this world scale battle.

So in my experience those two - Alexander and Augustus have given me the toughest (AI) challenge so far.

Am I the only one who has ever been impressed by Hapsy ? Sometimes she manages to get a huge lead in everything : tech, land, army. It doesn't happen often but I've seen it two or three times and it's the only leader I've ever really worried about on Noble. I remember a vanilla game where she was so totally dominating our continent that it wasn't even funny. And she can go berserk on religion too : if you're an unfaithful, she might very well crush you like a bug.

Monty is just a pain in the a** because you know he will attack you anyway (in one year of playing I can remember only one game where he didn't attack me and it was because I was bribing him to attack everybody else), the tech runners are really dangerous sometimes but very rarely aggressive, but believe me or not it's Hapsy I'm being careful with at the beginning of a game.

In my recent Prince game, Hatty attacked with a huge stacks of tanks. Since i had just fought off the Mongols, i didn't last too long.

I find the aggressive civs to play well, since they usually grab a lot of land.

If you get dragged into a war at the wrong time with the Romans, then both Ceasers are dreaded enemies because of the Praetorians.

In Vanilla, Catherine could be a menacing foe, but since Warlords, she's been nothing to worry about.

Gandhi and Mansa Musa are annoying during peace time as they are good builders and are often ahead in the tech race.

Personally though, I never find Isabella or Monty much of a problem. Both of them a completly phsychotic, but they seem to always build small, crap armies and are never much of a threat once the initial assault is crushed.

Mansa Musa always has a leg up in technology and money, making him my greatest fear when playing Civ4.

On Emperor I've found Alexander to be a complete and utter menace, plenty of units and unlike the Ghenghis will tech well. Horrific to deal with if left to swallow too many of his AI brethren.

Qin has been giving me the most problems lately with his WL protective trait.

With Catherine, you gotta take her down before she gets Cossacks and Cannons. In the early stages of the game, she over-expands and her cities are poorly defended. That is the best time to take some cities from her.

If you get dragged into a war at the wrong time with the Romans, then both Ceasers are dreaded enemies because of the Praetorians.
In Vanilla, Catherine could be a menacing foe, but since Warlords, she's been nothing to worry about.

Gandhi and Mansa Musa are annoying during peace time as they are good builders and are often ahead in the tech race.

Personally though, I never find Isabella or Monty much of a problem. Both of them a completly phsychotic, but they seem to always build small, crap armies and are never much of a threat once the initial assault is crushed.
THat reminds me...both Caesar's now declare war on their closest naighber whenever they get to Preytorians now(new Warlords addition.....d@mn Firaxis), and that usually turns out to be me :(. I tell you, the AI is hard to beat when they got 8+ Preytorians in the middle ages.

THat reminds me...both Caesar's now declare war on their closest naighber whenever they get to Preytorians now(new Warlords addition.....d@mn Firaxis), and that usually turns out to be me :(. I tell you, the AI is hard to beat when they got 8+ Preytorians in the middle ages.

Get a Oracle Slingshot to Metal Casting, Assign an Engineer Specialist, once yoru GE is Born lightbulb Machinery and Pray you have Iron to Build those Crossbowmen Counters on the Prats.

China is Best with their Cho-ku-nus, Collateral damage on the Prats Muahahahahahaha

I have problems with alot of leaders, but when it comes down to warring with their UU

It's Redcoats, They Don't have a Resource I can Pillage to prevent them from building Redcoats... :S

And Spanish Conquistadors, their the only mounted Unit that gets Defensive bonuses and you can't Counter them with Pikes... :S the only thing you can Counter Conquistadors with are Elephants if your not ahead in tech, and Ivory can be quite a Rare Resources, harder to get then Copper, iron and horses.

If you don't have Elephants then you have to Use Knights vs Knights and sometimes Muskets and give them Formation Promotions, you have to use Msukets Especially if the Conquistador is combined with a Pike on the same tile :S.

If your the Ottomens or the French you better be beelining to gunpowder ASAP
The Arabs Have A Good UU Counter to the Conquistador but you're not always gonna play them against the Spaniah are you...

Ive often wondered why the mounted uu's get defensive bonuses. Is it meant to be like that?

In all my games of warlords, I've found that Augustus and Catherine tend to be quite strong domestically and they both are pretty smart at warfare. Fredrick, Ramesses II, and Hatshepsut aren't bad either. Everyone else plays differently each time. Stalin, Isabella, and Tokugawa always end up at the bottom of the score ladder.

I hate Mansa.

I'm a builder, not a warmongerer, and usually on high research. But Mansa keeps annoying me when he can support larger army than others with his UB. So if I'm not a good friend of Mansa, he may declare war and bring his new and very good troops on my lands. He once ruined my Cultural Victory, I played as Mehmed, noticed that I can get CV, and Mansa came and razed Edirne (4 wonders).

Mansa is unbeatable in the early game with his UU if you do't have yourself an UU with uber-attack (like Preatorians). But he usually tends to neglect his military after that, you can take him down when you have macemen. In my last game (Noble, large Continents) he took a lead in techs and built all the wonders I wanted (University of Sankore and Spiral Minaret, being the founder of the unique religion on our continent)) so I beelined to Chemistry and attacked him : I took his whole empire down with a stack of 6 grenadiers and 4 trebuchets plus 2 cavalry to pillage his strategic ressources...

In all my games of warlords, I've found that Augustus and Catherine tend to be quite strong domestically and they both are pretty smart at warfare. Fredrick, Ramesses II, and Hatshepsut aren't bad either. Everyone else plays differently each time. Stalin, Isabella, and Tokugawa always end up at the bottom of the score ladder.
Stalin always is on the top for me....until I kill him since his real-life contarpart was an <snip>.

THat reminds me...both Caesar's now declare war on their closest naighber whenever they get to Preytorians now(new Warlords addition.....d@mn Firaxis), and that usually turns out to be me :(. I tell you, the AI is hard to beat when they got 8+ Preytorians in the middle ages.

Make sure that you're the #1 leader in regard to standing military, and the AI will pick a weaker target.

Civs that are Pleased will go to war with you if you are weak, and especially if you have a strategic resource that they need.

In my last few games (Vanilla) I've faced a lot of early game trouble from NAPOLEON. Once he picks you as a target, he NEVER stops. Declare war, drive him off, he signs peace for 10 turns, declares war on you again.

He absolutely crippled my last game as I was unable to take any of his cities thanks to constant elephant attacks.

Other than him, I've had my share of problems with Mao and Kublai Khan.

Monty, Isabella, Genghis, and Tokugawa are almost always a non-factor.

since starting warlords ive only had problems with two of them.

Tokugawa, once he gets his samurai he swarms over my borders with them and they are not easy to stop. once i get to gunpowder then he isnt a problem.

rome, either one of them is always my closest tech rival usally stealing away many of the wonders before i finish them. the last one rome and i split all the wonders between us.

Keepng with the original topic. Napoleon always wants to fight me early on. And sometimes Alexander. Plus the usual ones u'all mentioned.

The Korean gentleman is a very tough opponent. His Protective trait makes attacking him early prohibitively expensive, and his Financial trait keeps you from easily outgrowing him.

Tokugawa. The ultimate grumpy neighbour. He's hard to befriend, he's not afraid to stab you in the back, and his cities are virtually impregnable thanks to the aggressive, protective trait.

Elizabeth is equally annoying, but in the field of tech rather than war.

Mansa Musa and his cursed tech lead. Otherwise, I dont see THAT much consistency in fighting against leaders. Ive seen Stalin have an impossibly huge army, Alexander is usually tough, same with Napoleon. Basically the aggresive guys tend to be most difficult, exception being Toku...most of my games he is trailing in tech.

Hannibal does well in the tech departement too. He's financial, expands a lot but not too much and is easy to live with, making him a tech trader. In most of my games he's the lead in techs around 1500 BC if he's on another continent.

The AI does really better since the patch techwise. I'm beaten to Liberalism half of the time if not more. They're hard to get if you can't trade with the most advanced, and those are always on the other continent. On mine they're usually behind me but close enough, as long it's not Monty or some other retarded psycho AI like Toku.

Isabella and her legions of missionaries.

In vanilla, it was usually Cyrus. But all the Creative leaders tend to do well.

Psychos like Montezuma are not that much of a threat since you know from the beginning there'll be a war, and you have time to prepare. You just have to hope they don't declare war on you at an inconvenient time. :D

I am also constantly on the lookout to see when, not if, Monty will attack. He is always starting some kind of trouble.

Cathy is another soar spot, as a warmonger or builder. She is always a challenge.

I have had Warlords for about week now and just noticed Ghengis' new traits. Aggressive and Imperialistic. I wonder how effective the AI is with their Great Generals. Has anyone played Ghengis and is willing to share their story?

I was actually about to start a Ghengis game, although I never make very effective use of mounties. As for Monty, I love starting near him because he's like a hitman: whatever you do to him, you don't feel bad. Also with Spiritual he often founds a religion. If he's on the other continent, however, he's a problem because he tends to win dominance there and then start landing large armies right next to my cities without warning.

I don't know how the AI is in general with Great Generals, but I've conquered cities with Military Academies, which I think are a very wasteful use of them.

Peter is pretty much like Monty for me. At one time or another, he will backstab you, no matter what happened before. I've seen him convert to a religion he had in half of his cities while mine was spreaded in every city of his empire, just to have a reason to declare war on me I guess. And he's usually good at declaring war on you when you're already at war with a powerful enemy.

But he never does any good. Just wipe the floor with him before he gets cossacks. :D

I've found that most of the warmonger personalities tend to be weaker in the long run. Either they conquer the world quickly, or they simply fall into apart...sometimes slowly, sometimes in a flash. However, I'm prepared for it, so I always know that guys like Monty and Genghis are fighters to be dealt with.

I've found Catherine to be strong domestically as well, but I can't figure out why. Hannibal is one of my worst nightmares--he was incredibly strong in one particular game I remember, and with the Financial and Charismatic combo he was a tough nut to crack. The thing is, Hannibal is aggressive enough to attack people and take land, but he still can form a number of friends and get his own little alliance going.

Hannibal takes the cake over Mansa as my worst nightmare. Carthage is like the Mali, but they can fight better. The Indians still are pretty good at keeping up in tech and establishing a lead, as are the Mali, but they don't have the teeth that Carthage has.

Hatshepsut was mentioned before...I admittedly was impressed by her quick expansion and empire building...and then I watched the Mongols wipe them out completely in a single early war before CE times.

Definetily Ragnar.
I m about to finish an Emperor diff game at large map an Pangea with the Ottomans.
It's 1800 AD now,I counqured 49% of the world.
I have 3 vassals Monty,Alexander and Cyrus,and Lizzy was destroyed by me.
But Ragnar has 2 vassals as well,Washington and Ramsess,and even Shaka would be against me.
He decraled war at least 10 times in history against Washington and Ramses,and conquered them step by step.
A world war has just began but even I have infantry and cavalry againsts his rifles and cavalry ( My invasion force contain about 30 infantry 10 cavalry and 10 cannon ) and I destroyed at least 40 of his units he is just coming.
I discovered Flight 1 turn ago,so I hope bombers will help,but even with bombers this will be my most brutal and best war against an AI.

Tech leaders: Mansa, Gandhi, Hannibal
Warmongers who can expand/build well: HC, Ragnar, Rameses
Just plain warmongers who just happen to have much land: Genghis Khan, Augustus Caesar, Julius Caesar

I've had these leaders as rivals for prolonged periods in the game before. The Romans, for example, can take land when their UU is the strongest and rebuild those lands until they are a superpower in the future.

Mansa Musa. You can't get a tech lead on him very easily, and it's hard to rush him early because of the Skirmishers.

I wonder how effective the AI is with their Great Generals. Has anyone played Ghengis and is willing to share their story?

AIs sometimes use GGs as MAs, but when they turn them into warloads, they are really careless. One time I watched Cesar's Warload calvary(Patton) all by himself passing my terrotory en-route to attack an enemy city. 3 turns later, "Patton has died in battle" flashed through as turn summary. I could not help but laugh. In that game, I saw at least 4 such obituaries.

I think for the AIs it is best to use as instructors, but I think you lose the instructors when you capture that city(can someone confirm).

I think for the AIs it is best to use as instructors, but I think you lose the instructors when you capture that city(can someone confirm).

Instructors will be gone most likely, but i've managed to capture many cities that still have military academy left. I have never seen AI to use GG's attached to units.

I've seen a few GG units...I know I've killed at least 3. They do it, rarely.

I think Military Academies are much more viable now, given they provide +50% military unit production (double the original) and provide culture (icing on the cake bonus).

However, I don't think Ragnar is much of a threat, simply because in one of my recent games, he somehow managed to not research agriculture, pottery, or mysticism...in 350 AD, thereabouts. His civilization was pretty weak from the whole no farms or cottages thing...and practically no culture.

I think I've only seen the AI produce one Great General, and they used it on an Academy. The AIs don't fight eachother much in my games.

Hmm...somebody needs to up the difficulty a little. Or turn on Aggressive AI. :)

There are usually at least one or two AI wars before 1 CE in my games, sometimes more. And I typically pick a fight before 1 CE as well...sometimes more.

From the Middle Ages to the early Industrial Age, though, that's when I've noticed a spike in AI warmongering.

I think I've only seen the AI produce one Great General, and they used it on an Academy. The AIs don't fight eachother much in my games.I had plenty of AI fighting in my last game... a lot of it before I met the other continent. Monty took some of Shaka's land, then declared war again and Shaka became a vassal. Later he declared war on Mehmed (or was it the other way around?). I bribed him to go to war again as Mehmed was getting a tech lead while I was disposing of rival civs on my continent. I've sent a big force over to crush Mehmed and then they'll continue to crush Monty. I usually find that the AIs build up good relations with eachother regardless of religion (they get open borders so get the + from it cancelling out the - from the religion, whereas I start off with Annoyed in many cases and can't get open borders to get the +). Having leaders like Alexander, Monty, Isabella etc will cause wars to break out even among AIs.

Hmm...somebody needs to up the difficulty a little. Or turn on Aggressive AI. :)

There are usually at least one or two AI wars before 1 CE in my games, sometimes more. And I typically pick a fight before 1 CE as well...sometimes more.

From the Middle Ages to the early Industrial Age, though, that's when I've noticed a spike in AI warmongering.

They attack me plenty, or at least they used to until I adopted my 'warmonger from the starting gate' strategy, now I'm the one starting fights. But rarely do they attack eachother. I'm playing Noble, I haven't fiddled with the Aggressivometer, does that affect how they treat eachother or just me?

Aggressive AI: More likely to start wars with each other and the player, have a hidden -2 relations with the human player.

So diplomacy is much more important than ever. It is easier to bribe an AI and it will be harder to have allies (but those allies are more valuable).

So it's a disadvantage for the human player, in addition to there being more war in general. I will try that, since I'm beating Noble a little too consistently but Monarch looks too hard. How do you turn on Aggressive AI? Is it an option when you start the game?

So it's a disadvantage for the human player, in addition to there being more war in general. I will try that, since I'm beating Noble a little too consistently but Monarch looks too hard. How do you turn on Aggressive AI? Is it an option when you start the game?
The option is in the same list where u can turn on or off Barbs, No tech trading, etc.

Prince difficulty is not all that bad--I can beat it consistently (although I've lost a little of my edge recently). Prince with Aggressive AI is just a giant multimillenia bloodbath.

And rustydusty is right--look around in that central panel with all the options. You'll see it...

Prince difficulty is not all that bad--I can beat it consistently (although I've lost a little of my edge recently). Prince with Aggressive AI is just a giant multimillenia bloodbath.

Excellent! It's kind of annoying how the AI rarely weaken eachother OR have highly experienced units when their time comes.

And rustydusty is right--look around in that central panel with all the options. You'll see it...

Great, thanks guys.

Indian leaders never mess me up that badly. They can get going pretty impressively, but they're easy to stop in their tracks; their "don't bother much with military and never start a fight" attitude makes it easy for a player to, at worst, build up a nice force of high move units and send them pillaging throughout their network of towns, breaking the back of their commerce.

People like Catherine, Ragnar and Hannibal, who can not only jump ahead in a tech race but also beat the dog **** out of anyone who tries to force them to slow down, are the hardest types of leaders to face, I think.

The Indians are a pain if you leave them alone and let them do what they do best--the scientific race.

But I agree with Monkeyfinger's other comments, especially on Hannibal--I think he is one of the strongest leaders around. And no slouch...he started in an artic wasteland in my last game, and still managed to be a challenge later on (got up to 3rd place, almost 2nd). He would have easily been the strongest if he had a good starting position.

Mansa is a pain due to the tech lead. Whenever I have him next door, I play nice but try to grab any copper/iron resources before he can settle near them. Keep him resource poor and he makes a nice buffer civilization between me and my other opponents.

Ha! I did that in one game to poor old Mansa. He was a buffer between myself and Genghis Khan. (I think I was India in that Game....it was a few weeks ago.) When we were first settling there was a copper resource in dispute. Throughout the game cultural borders caused it to change possession several times. But I played nice with Mansa because he was leading in tech and he was my buffer from Genghis. On the other side of my civ was Monty. Funny thing is Genghis and I were good friends through the whole game! Eventually Genghis attacked Mansa and he only had two measly cities near my border (the cities weren't measly, I mean by that his once decent empire was gone). I backstabbed him and took them myself. At last tat copper was all mine!

Then freaking Washington beat me in a spaceship win.


(I only play as Tokugawa.)

Monte is simply amusing to me now. I can outbuild him or convince other civs to go after him because he's so annoying to everyone.[/QUOTE]

For me, Togugawa is a pain because he never trades, but for strongest leader, I'd say MM, Isabella, or Hannibal.

Tokugawa is rarely a problem for me because his isolationist policies tend to leave him without allies and backwards with regard to technology. Early on, he might be challenging, but as the game progresses he falls behind and typically doesn't catch up. Japan has never survived until the Industrial Age in my games unless I'm the guy playing Japan.

I agree that your other selections can be problematic, Mansa Musa and Hannibal moreso than Isabella.

The Indians are a pain if you leave them alone and let them do what they do best--the scientific race.

Truth. But there's no reason to do that. At worst, they ended up on a different continent than you. (If someone's beating you to like every wonder but none of your immediate neighbors are the ones doing it, you have a pretty solid idea of what happened.) Even then, you can beeline to Astronomy, build... whatever the best transport at the time is, load up fast units on them, and pay India an unfriendly visit.

And Observatories help put you back in the tech race!!!!!!!! ...too far? ...I'll just don this dunce cap and sit in the corner now.

i wish i had a screen shot but i am at work...the game i started last night as ghengis kahn has me up against, shaklu(zuulu), alexander (greece), caesar(rome), bismark(germany) and brennus(celts)....talk about . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .....i seriously fight one for a bit, take a city, then peace, then i think i get time to rebuild my army/economy, and all of a sudden another one declares war on me......then another.....right now i am at war w/3 civs, none will accept peace.....and i refuse to capitulate......and my army is barely afload, my economy is ****..i haven't lost a city yet, but i can see the day approaching very soon...i just started playin on prince like 2 weeks ago

i wish i had a screen shot but i am at work...the game i started last night as ghengis kahn has me up against, shaklu(zuulu), alexander (greece), caesar(rome), bismark(germany) and brennus(celts)....talk about . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .....i seriously fight one for a bit, take a city, then peace, then i think i get time to rebuild my army/economy, and all of a sudden another one declares war on me......then another.....right now i am at war w/3 civs, none will accept peace.....and i refuse to capitulate......and my army is barely afload, my economy is ****..i haven't lost a city yet, but i can see the day approaching very soon...i just started playin on prince like 2 weeks ago :sad: :mad: :(

i wish i had a screen shot but i am at work...the game i started last night as ghengis kahn has me up against, shaklu(zuulu), alexander (greece), caesar(rome), bismark(germany) and brennus(celts)....talk about . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .....i seriously fight one for a bit, take a city, then peace, then i think i get time to rebuild my army/economy, and all of a sudden another one declares war on me......then another.....right now i am at war w/3 civs, none will accept peace.....and i refuse to capitulate......and my army is barely afload, my economy is ****..i haven't lost a city yet, but i can see the day approaching very soon...i just started playin on prince like 2 weeks ago


Welcome to Prince. Fun, isn't it? ;)

@Monkeyfinger: I agree--the Indians typically are on the bad side of the whopping shovel (anyone else know where that's from?) from the start. Same with Mansa Musa...it's just I believe that the Indians are harder to beat in the tech race than, say, Alexander is in the military one if they get ahead. Obviously, prevention is the best measure...

The thing that always irks me about Hannibal is that he can tech pretty well with Financial, but his UU and Charismatic trait make for a decent warmonger. He's not unpredictable like Monty, but if he has the opportunity to conquer, he does. And he'll keep up in science...one strong combo, right there.

Alexander is a menace. For one, he's capable of maintaining a good tech stance. Two, he's always militarily strong. Three, he's just whimsical; hard to predict and can be quite an arrogant, demanding ass, especially early on when he has those menaces to mounted units.

The other one I can't stand is Louis. He's ugly as hell so I never look foward to diplomacy with him and he's another one of those guys who likes to demand crap. Not to mention he's usually strong culturally.

I think Alexander is more predictable...he tends to be a bully and threatens people weaker on the power graph than him more often than not. He's still a military beast though...

I hate Louis XIV. He's never been overwhelming in my games, so I won't say he's one of the tough AI leaders, but he's just annoying.

Montezuma is a royal pain in the back. But nowadays i usually get him first by building a huge stack and then vassaling him

Mansu is my least favorite because one of my goals it to keep the AIs technologically backwards, and he researches and spreads techs like crazy. In my current game (Prince, Inland seas((?)), as Rome) I bulldozed Alexander for no other reason than to get a clear shot at Mansu.

I actually like starting near Isabela, because I feel absolutely no guilt for crushing her immediately, and I usually get a holy city or two out of it. Only problem is her cities have a high cultural defense from the beginning.

Mansa ALWAYS has tons of tech research and lots of moolah to blow.

I would invade him, but the problem is that in most all of my games, he's on the opposite side of the globe.

However, there was one game I played where he was my neighbor...:evil:

Needless to say, he wasn't that much trouble once I was through with him.:cool:

The problem with Mansa Musa is the early unique unit that is a better city defender. Skirmishers are tough fighters, even after you have swords and catapults because their raw strength is increased by 33% (not to mention the first strikes--they get extra, right?). And while his cities are hard to take, he is researching like crazy to get ahead. If he's on the map, I take him down in the Middle Ages, usually.

I shudder to think of what Wang Kon's traits would do paired with a Mali leader...

The problem with Mansa Musa is the early unique unit that is a better city defender. Skirmishers are tough fighters, even after you have swords and catapults because their raw strength is increased by 33% (not to mention the first strikes--they get extra, right?). And while his cities are hard to take, he is researching like crazy to get ahead. If he's on the map, I take him down in the Middle Ages, usually.

I shudder to think of what Wang Kon's traits would do paired with a Mali leader...

Very true. I think they did a good job of preventing killer UUs from being ehanced by leader traits, i.e. no Roman leader is Aggressive, Inca no longer are Aggressive, etc.

Very true. I think they did a good job of preventing killer UUs from being ehanced by leader traits, i.e. no Roman leader is Aggressive, Inca no longer are Aggressive, etc.

Hah, a charismatic or aggressive Roman leader, oh wow that would be scary. You know, I wouldn't mind some things being overpowered or underpowered and what not. Sometimes I get the feeling Civ4 is made to be too balanced due to multiplayer when multiplayer only accounts for a fraction of Civ4 gaming.

Hah, a charismatic or aggressive Roman leader, oh wow that would be scary. You know, I wouldn't mind some things being overpowered or underpowered and what not. Sometimes I get the feeling Civ4 is made to be too balanced due to multiplayer when multiplayer only accounts for a fraction of Civ4 gaming.

That makes sense. I still think Praetorians are overpowered and Jaguars are underpowered. I don't mind these imbalances because I play singleplayer and they add flavor, meaning I know I have to either beat Rome before he gets iron or play nice until I get macemen. But I'd hate for someone to whip me with Rome while I tried a less blatantly dominant civ and then claim he was better than me.

Same here...but I've never played an online game of Civ. I only play offline vs. the computer...

Yeah, it's like with Redcoats, too. I personally felt they were fine before they were reduced. But, I guess a lot of people were complaining about Redcoat rushes online. Just build lots of grenadiers and collateral damage weapons!

Montazuma is usually a real pain in the neck, however I have a tendency to out-axemen him.
Ghandi beats me occasionally in peace, but he'll help me if I can sweet talk him.
Mansis I simply raid, destroy his hamlets, and then starve his cities.
Shaka is pretty loyal, but gruff enough to watch.
If anyone plays VISA, Yagan tends to be a antisocial warmonger-type, it's ok though, Deganawida (me) will soon absorb him.

Cyrus usually dominates in my games, but then is taken out by a huge gang-up :rolleyes:

My last game, was completely OWNED by Wang Kon. It wasnt even funny. I got a bad strip of land, with only one passage to the mainland, so my only option was to take out Germany (because he owned the passage).

SO im happily destroying germany, and *all-of-the-sudden* germany decides to be the vassal of Wang Kon.

:eek:

Within 5 turns i was BEGGING for peace, and my newly captured German cities were added to Wang Kon's enourmous empire..
Then he comes in and completely annihilates persia (the #2 guy). He happens to be my closest friend in that game too :crazyeye:

Wang Kon scares me. I don't know what to do with him, because you can't bulldoze over his super defensive units and you can't just let him fall behind like Tokugawa. How do you solve a problem like Korea?

Wang Kon scares me. I don't know what to do with him, because you can't bulldoze over his super defensive units and you can't just let him fall behind like Tokugawa. How do you solve a problem like Korea?

The Roman way: diplomacy and/or sheer military might. Construction and other siege techs should be a priority as well. I don't care how many city garrison promotions a unit has or how many longbows are in a city, a throng of siege weapons will win.

That's true of course. No civ that's weaker than you is impossible to crush militarily, but Protective civs can be cost prohibitive, meaning that you have to dedicate so much time and production to breaking them that other civs surge ahead.