This is like a Survivor analogy: some AIs are players of the game and some get played.

Which AI's do you feel really know how to play the game?

From my experience:

Hannibal- never trades tech with me, usually has a large tech lead and a large army, usually has some strong allies/ good diplomacy.

Suleiman- good techer, usually has a large empire, stingy tech trader.

Wong Kai- Most of the time Protective leaders have poor technology so aren't a threat. But Wong usually has great technology, beelines for Physics/ Flight which makes attacking him futile. I also never have a high diplomacy rating with him- hard to get him in your pocket.

Asoka- Smart enough to go for cheesey culture victories.

AIs are chumps if:

They trade too easily (Mansa Musa)
They are appeased too easily (Isabella)
They are always tech backwards (Toku, Bismark)
They are always at war with other AIs (Monty, Louis)
Their army is always a joke (Joao)
Build a ton of wonders for the player that conquers them (Ramsses, Haupa Cayac (sp?))

Cheers,

Dai

I would add to the winners side:

Cyrus: good techer and good warmonger... always gathers a nice chunk of land and powers up through the game. Also works his diplo well.....A real pain if you have to face him ( otherwise he can be a nice partner in crime :D )

Shaka: Always tries to Rex, via settlers or via Impis :devil: . Normally he breaks the back or one or two civs that will feed techs on him.... and tries to get the Mids for Police State, and use it to build a even greater army. Or you face him before the non return point or pray .....

In a game I am playing right now I declared war on Ghandi on three separate occasions right in a row and after each war he would accept open boarders with me immediately the next turn. A little to forgiving I think.

I totally agree with Hannibal, though if you start as his neighbor he is often the most inviting target for the first war. Then he isn't so hot, but give him time to get situated and he plays very well. Cyrus is a great player too.

Augustus Caesar is another Machiavelli type. Very competitive Human-like AI.

Mehmed is much like Hannibal too.



I agree with all your points.

Willem plays to win.

Techs fast and expands, goes for cultural and gets it in my games :(

i'm with r_rolo1 about Shaka. i like that phrase, "non-return point". if he doesn't get smacked down early or expand himself too much, he ends up doing really well. particularly since he doesn't have any brainy-type traits. he knows how to use what he has, tho, as long as he makes it past the early stages.

about gandhi:
A little to forgiving I think.

so true! my first random personalities game, i pegged Qin as Gandhi really early just because he was such a pushover. it was kind of disappointing to be so sure so soon after meeting him, but the guy is that predictable and that different from everybody else! when democracy rolled around he had Gandhi's favorite civic, so i was right. the others i didn't figure out, which was cool.

Asoka and Willem i have no clue. i've played i think 4 games as Willem and only once against him. Gandhi's one of my favorites to play, plus i tend to handpick him as an opponent for certain types of HoF gauntlets so in those i have no chance to meet Asoka even when i'm not india myself :lol:

Last time I played against Shaka he won a Diplo victory :confused:

Anyway, 2 people I always see doing very well: Justinian adnd Zara Yaqob, both usually have huge empires,
and Zara always manages to expand that empire.. he doesnt take vassals :p

quite funny, Zara is mighty. But also a very trustworthy ally

Zara Yaqob is undoubtedly the best AI player, in my opinion. I have never seen him not do well, probably thanks to steady, big expansion, fairly liberal trading, and a good balance between tech and war.

Cyrus- He's a little too easy to please; I've been good neighbors with him often. Although he is a land grabber, he's not unusually demanding with tribute; I've found that just agreeing to adopt Vassalage once or twice and he'll leave me alone the rest of the game. That being said, the good points of his game is his WFYABTA is pretty low/ average, he has good relationships all around and I imagine signs a lot of Defensive Pacts, and I've never been able to bribe him into a war (which is the sign of a true sucker leader).

Augie- He seems to be content once he has established a reasonable size empire with high power rating. I've been neighbors with him and I found that he doesn't declare war on you if you give him enough space and give him tribute/ share technology a couple of times. So I find that he behaves like a much less annoying version of Toku. I was quite scared the first time I saw the stacks of Praetorians but he never declared war.

Mehmed- Have never been on his continent before

Shaka- From my experience he gets involved in bad wars. I remember a game where he was vassalized by Wong Kai. I kept on bribing Wong to make peace with Shaka but as soon as the 10 turns were over Wong kept on breaking the treaty and quickly crushed Shaka with Elephants. This is even after I had donated all my advanced military tech to the Zulu cause. I finally gave up on Shaka.

Zara- Have never been on his continent before

Wiliam of Oranje- He's always had a weak military when I've played. He techs fast and REXes well but doesn't go after the military techs and doesn't build an insane amount of units. But I haven't had a game with him since the newest patch yet.

Genghis- I've never gotten a game with him in the later game, but early on he is a good player. He builds a big military and makes a lot of demands; and generally if he's my neighbor its better to give him tribute than go to war with him- Keshiks are strong pillaging units and war is too costly. But sooner or later he will get into a drawn out war with one of the other AIs, he'll forget to bully me for tech and then he's done. Also he's pretty easy to bribe into war (because he usually has bad diplomacy with the other AIs).

Cheers,

Dai

Wong Kai? Are you referring to Wang Kon of Korea? Just trying to clarify since I am not very familiar with all the leaders.

I was going to make a thread titled "AI leaders tendencies and behaviors" but saw this thread and didn't want to make a redundant thread.

Do you guys have any other leaders not mentioned so far that you know of their usual tendencies and behaviors in your game?

I stopped playing Civ4 for a very long time shortly after I played vanilla for a little while due to busy RL and just recently got back into it after getting BtS. Now there are so many leaders and many of the leaders that I was familiar with got their traits all changed, so I am trying to catch up.

Darius. With a trait combination like his, you're not exactly going to lose arew you?

Sorry;) You're right, I meant Wang Kon. I knew it looked wrong somehow.

I tend to get Mansa Musa, Toku, Isabella, Hannibal, Stalin, Sitting Bull, Montezuma, Ragnar, Haupa Cayac?, Joao, Qin Shi Huang and Suleiman a lot in my games, so I know them very well. Qin, Haupa, Ramsses are good targets for early war, Suleiman is super easy to bribe to war, Joao is a demanding little . .. .. .. .. . that you just gotta beat up, Isabella adopt her religion or no religion, Toku just go for containment policy and do not let him get any more land, etc...

Leaders I've gotten only once or never are Alexander, Ghandi, Lincoln, Napoleon, Charles de Gaulle and Churchill.

Cheers,

Dai

Darius. With a trait combination like his, you're not exactly going to lose arew you?

Darius is always the punching ball in my games, everyone wants a piece of him :p So if you feel like that in your games, yes he is very "human" :D

Ghandi is without doubt a weak player. If he doesn't get an early religion he just sits around doin nothing the rest of the game. Also an easy viktim to warmongering :crazyeye: Moa is also an easy target. He may tech fast in som games, but he doesn't know how to garrison his cities and go to war. Can't count how many times I've wiped him out during early or middle game. Tokugawa ain't much of a player either. Too weak when it comes to tech and commerce. He usually built a decent army tough, but nothing you can't beat ;)

Yeah, yeah... On the other scale you got Hannibal, Augustus Ceasar, Wan Kon (tech and commerce), Cathrine, Peter. They all play decent games, but of course, they're not unbeatable... :goodjob:

In a game I am playing right now I declared war on Ghandi on three separate occasions right in a row and after each war he would accept open boarders with me immediately the next turn. A little to forgiving I think.

Yeah - agree, but he's good if he can maintain peace - his cultural potential is nice.

I would add to the winners side:
Cyrus: good techer and good warmonger... always gathers a nice chunk of land and powers up through the game. Also works his diplo well.....A real pain if you have to face him ( otherwise he can be a nice partner in crime :D )

Shaka: Always tries to Rex, via settlers or via Impis :devil: . Normally he breaks the back or one or two civs that will feed techs on him.... and tries to get the Mids for Police State, and use it to build a even greater army. Or you face him before the non return point or pray .....

Agree on Cyrus, had a game where he kept techlead until rifles with 3 cities... Then I shot him >_<
About Shaka, very true, if you face him early, deal with him - started against him, Huayna and Justinian in my current Japanese game - I had to kill him early (he plays very like his traits - aggressive and expansive - I found him rexxing so much that I had to raze two of his cities to keep my economy alive).

I totally agree with Hannibal, though if you start as his neighbor he is often the most inviting target for the first war. Then he isn't so hot, but give him time to get situated and he plays very well. Cyrus is a great player too.

Agree, Hannibal is a beast if he gets an island for himself or something the like. His traits and Uniques are just so good for a lonely island start, or a peninsula.

Willem plays to win.

Techs fast and expands, goes for cultural and gets it in my games :(

Yup, have had him win like that twice aswell. :)

Yeah, yeah... On the other scale you got Hannibal, Augustus Ceasar, Wan Kon (tech and commerce), Cathrine, Peter. They all play decent games, but of course, they're not unbeatable... :goodjob:

You find these AIs the hardest? Hannibal and Caesar, agree, but Wan Kon is always a loser in my games, Cathrine is too easy to diplo and can't tech properly. Peter has a poor civ, poor traits and a poor personality - he gets beaten up too easily. I find I have more problems with Asoka and Mansa Musa and the like - Churchill is rather good aswell.

I find Peter is too happy to start wars and seems to do badly when fighting them. I've often seen him get wiped out after getting into a two front war.



Any civ with the Imperalistic tend to do well as they grab lots of land in the early game. Financial civs do well too.


Apart from civs in those groups, Zara also is very good player. He techs fast, though I'm not sure why, considering his traits...


The indian civs can be a threat if they start far away from you and are able to win culturally. In war though, they fall quickly.

Mansa Musa trades too easy? Which mod are you playing? I believe he is coded to be the most unlikely civ to trade techs in the whole game. And that is certainly the case in my experience with him.

Mansa Musa doesn't trade too easy? Which mod are you playing? I believe he is coded to be the most likely civ to trade techs in the whole game. And that is certainly the case in my experience with him.

somebody has random personalities on!

Basically those who tech quickly and maintain peace are the "players". Mansa Musa and Gandhi come to mind.

Pacal II is sick techer. He's always my toughest rival in science.

Pacal II, Zara, and Hannibal are always top tier in my games. The Khymer leader tends to do well if he can team up with a good tech partner. Willim seems to over expand, get involved in bad wars, and capitulate before too long. Gilgamesh tends to be a bit of a terrorist early, by making insane DOW's, and losing cities (kind of a pain, because he is protective, the wars cost too much for too little gain - he'll still tech well until you start pillaging). Izzy is my late game terrorist, launching stacks of obsolete troops against my mech infantry in harbor towns, which is just plain annoying. I'd rather start next to Julius than Augustus, because if you can weather the storm to machinery, he will be no problem.

I guess the AIs come in certain cats

1) Most dangerous war-mongers: Shaka, Khmer and Ragnar. Shaka knows how to fight (he's the best AI at it) and Ragnar is one of the few war-mongers who does not fall behing in tech. The Khmer guy will always go to war fairly early and is relentless.

2) Scientist: Musa, Pacal, Ghandi.

3) Overexpansionists who do not get burned: Joao and Catherine. Both expand very fast and get alot of territory but never seam to crash the economies and have a good army.

4) Classic backstabbers: Qin, Alexander, Napolean. Never trust them.

5) Wonder builders: Ramses, Bismark.

6) Zealots: Isabella, Charlemange, Justinian. They just don't dislike you, they will attack you.

7) Top Notch and well balanced: Put most of the above together: HC and Hannibal.

Using madscientist's categories...

Warmongerers - Shaka, Napoleon.

Scientists - Mansa, Pacal, Asoka

Expansionists - Justinian, Zara, Joao

Backstabbers - Alexander, Sitting Bull, Catherine

Wonder Builders - Hatty, Freddy

Zealots - Izzy, Saladin

Generally Awesome - Hannibal, Pericles, Gandhi (excluding war)

Well if I am wrong about Mansa then someone should tell DJ Anion that his reference guide is wrong also. He has Mansa as the only leader that is "very averse" to tech trading. He also has the known technologies AI would want to trade at 0%, the lowest of any leader.

Musa will trade any tech at almost any time for a price.

Well I will concede that he will trade but he always wants way too much. Maybe in some respect DJ Anion's sheet has to be erred but in another respect he is right.

The only AI's I cringe at when I run into them are Zara Yacob and Shaka, and Shaka only in the early game. Suryavarman and Charlie will always have big empires without overdoing it and both can be a pain if not controlled early. Gilgamesh is usually strong and so is Hannibal and Willem. War Mongers are usually easy to deal with, Shaka is the only one I ever have problems with because he is harder to trade with his Toku-esque style. I don't really have more problems from any civ as long as I'm paying attention to things except for those top two. If Shaka is on another continent I'm not too worried about him but Zara is a powerhouse from open to close of the game. I've lost more games to him than any other civ since BTS came out.

Mansa Musa trades too easy? Which mod are you playing? I believe he is coded to be the most unlikely civ to trade techs in the whole game. And that is certainly the case in my experience with him.
somebody has random personalities on!

The only situations where Mansa Musa won't trade you is if you're his worst enemy, and WFYABTA.

Using madscientist's categories...

Warmongerers - Shaka, Napoleon.

Scientists - Mansa, Pacal, Asoka

Expansionists - Justinian, Zara, Joao

Backstabbers - Alexander, Sitting Bull, Catherine

Wonder Builders - Hatty, Freddy

Zealots - Izzy, Saladin

Generally Awesome - Hannibal, Pericles, Gandhi (excluding war)

Generally agree, Shaka is a expansionist aswell though - and Ramesses is THE wonderbuilder. Also, I have one more cat to add:

Completely Loony Maniac: Monsterzuma

Have to agree on Mansa Musa, he almost always wants to trade techs, from my experience he suggests tech trading more than any other leader.
Ramesses(Ramses?) is nice to have as a neighbour. I'm currently playing a game as William and started out on one end of the continent with only Ramesses between me and the other two civs. After rexing a bit and establishing borders I eliminated Ramesses in a three-part war. Even though it's on aggressive AI his resistance was truly pathetic and I got three wonders out of it as well.

My huge issue with Mansa is that in my experience if you have good relations with him (perhaps from "Our trade relations have been fair"), unless he is building a wonder, he will trade you *any* tech, even the dangerous military ones: Rifling, Industrialism, Rocketry, Stealth, whatever.

That's just dumb and no human player would do that with a rival.

Otherwise, Mansa's "plan" I think is above average. In the early game you don't go after him because he is a good trade partner (and has Skirmishers). In the late game he outtechs you and is generally on parity with you in terms of military technology, so you inevitably leave him alone and go after weaker/ more dangerous targets.

The problem is that I've never seen him leverage his tech advantage towards an actual victory condition: culture, diplomacy or domination (sorry space fans, my games have always ended way before anyone could win the space race).

I would change my mind and say he is a good player if he had both the military strength *and* went after victory, but right now just use him for his techs and he survives to the end but he's not a real danger to actually winning, so he's a chump.

Cheers,

Dai

Willem plays to win.
Hells yes. One game he isolates himself and wins a culture victory, the next he declares war on every being within his sight.

Charles de Gaulle... who knew competent french generals existed? :eek:

Mansa Musa is extremely dangerous because his generosity with techs means that aggressive, military oriented AIs who are normally technologically backwards can cozy up to him and get techs from him. If you don't like, say, Shaka normally, you'll be goddamned terrified of him after he sucks from Mansa Musa's technological teat.

Mansa doesn't win, but he can boost a different AI way ahead of you.

If you don't like, say, Shaka normally, you'll be goddamned terrified of him after he sucks from Mansa Musa's technological teat.
:trophy::rotfl::trophy:
:band:


(can you guess who clicked on the 'More Smileys' link for the first time today?)

Permission to add this to my sig? Honestly, I just spit coffee all over my keyboard.

To redeem this post as on-topic, I'm going to assemble everything that's been posted here into a summary that I'll post down the road. So please keep posting observations, particularly if you disagree with something someone's said (so I'll know to include a caveat that the observation is controversial).

*snorts* "technological teat..."

I like being sigged. Do it.