So far in my games certain leaders have been horrible in each and every game. Bismarck and Tokogawa are #1 & #2 in this respect. I'm going to make a little mod that gives crappy leaders a little bonus to help them gain parity with everyone else. I'd like to see a consensus on who everyone sees consitently ending up in the bottom of the pile. I listed them in order of general suckiness as I've seen in my games. Successful leaders aren't on the list.

Looking forward to seeing the results! :)

I'd have to say Tokugawa. He just won't trade anything and that only cripples himself.

I say Tokugawa. He always is far behind in techs and wants to stay in isolation the whole game.

Toku, no question. He’s the most predictable AI ever – I’ve never seen him do anything else except turtle up, refuse to trade techs and resources, and become a ridiculous backwater by the middle of the renaissance, ready to be conquered by anyone. He doesn’t even fight wars of conquest!

Gandhi is a pushover, militarily, but if he manages to avoid early wars, he can become quite a technological powerhouse later in the game, so I wouldn’t count him in the same category as Toku. Likewise Monty, but in reverse – if he doesn’t succeed in carving out a massive empire by the end of the classical era, he falls so far behind in tech he ends up trying to beat back your rifles and cannon with axemen. But if he does amass a substantial empire early on (which he is capable of doing, sometimes), he is one scary guy.

What's up with the poll percentages?

Haha, 180%!

Anyway. Yes, Tokugawa. He once gave me a large city of his in exchange for a spare clam.

What's up with the poll percentages?

Hehe. No idea. But people can select multiple leaders.

Definitely Tokugawa. That guy consistently sucks it up, and while I like that the designers tried to flavor him with a realistic isolationist policy that pervaded Japanese society for much of history, it really cripples him (because unlike what really happened, he never makes a come-back!).

Bismark crappy! NO WAY! When you want a strong end game type player with non Financial abilities... Bismark is on the tops.

Generally, creative and spirital abilities are on the bottom of my list. Financial is on the extreme top. Industrial and Expansive tend to be near the top as well.

However, leaders abilities are just HALF of the game. The other half is the civilization it self. I dislike very early zerg rushes. Incas with their warriors and granaries can just eat it. The English is a nice civilization because their units are mid to late game and they have a powerful bank building and most of the leaders have the financial ability as well. Vikings are a decent early to early mid civilization.

^ This poll was about how AI plays.

Tokugawa & Sitting Bull tend to be last in score on my games (btw, according to BtS reference sheet SB never builds wonders .. which could help with his philosophical trait).

+1 for toku. He plays like an idiot and never does well.

My vote's for Monty. Most of the games I play, he ends up somebody's vassal. Probably because he invests little in tech and a lot in soldiers, then proceeds to use them very stupidly.

Toku, definitely the High Master of Suckiness. Monty, his faithful second, but at least he's alive and try to do something, even if he miserably fails 99% of the time. Toku just wastes perfectly good land for nothing, his empire is like some dead zone where nothing will happen ever. I've been playing this game for two years and I can remember only one game where he did actually achieve something, wipe the Mali out. My worst nightmare in this game is beginning a game isolated on a landmass with Toku : those are the dullest games I ever played.

Isabella rarely become powerful in my game.

^ This poll was about how AI plays.

Tokugawa & Sitting Bull tend to be last in score on my games (btw, according to BtS reference sheet SB never builds wonders .. which could help with his philosophical trait).

If the reference sheet indicates that Sitting Bull and Montezuma never, ever build wonders, it's wrong. They both have an "ooh shiny" factor of zero, but that doesn't mean they never build them at all, it just means they don't never give them special priority over other buildings. It's hard to explain the distinction, but essentially, they do build wonders, just not often.

Oh Monty has that too as "never" (i remembered "rarely"). I was wondering if reference sheet really has that correctly, now i know it's at least misleading.

Tokugawa is terrifying in my current game. He gobbled up the Aztecs when they attacked him. Switched religions to the powerblock near him. Now turning into the runaway 500lb gorilla. Nice to see as he is normally a bit of a gimp.

Wow, Tokugawa is dominating this poll...

If the map gives the civ good chances for development any leader/civ can become the strongest, but from average conditions there are weaker ones. I picked Toku (everything has been said, you know him), Bismarck and Saladin.
Bismarck to me seems too passive. He is no techer, but doesn't wage wars either, he doesn't go for religions, he doesn't expand peacefully and doesn't even go for cultural victories. I have never seen him as a leading civ in any aspect. And it is not only the late game UU and UB, Frederick does much better in my opinion.
Saladin is difficult: He is a religious fanatic like Isabel or Brennus, but the other ones go straight for their religions and spread them. Although Saladin starts with mysticism he rarely founds Buddhism or Hinduism, but often a later religion. He converts gets isolated and thats it. He is also a bad techer and bad warmonger.
Other weak AIs: Sitting Bull, Mao, Gilgamesch

If the map gives the civ good chances for development any leader/civ can become the strongest, but from average conditions there are weaker ones. I picked Toku (everything has been said, you know him), Bismarck and Saladin.
Bismarck to me seems too passive. He is no techer, but doesn't wage wars either, he doesn't go for religions, he doesn't expand peacefully and doesn't even go for cultural victories. I have never seen him as a leading civ in any aspect. And it is not only the late game UU and UB, Frederick does much better in my opinion.
Saladin is difficult: He is a religious fanatic like Isabel or Brennus, but the other ones go straight for their religions and spread them. Although Saladin starts with mysticism he rarely founds Buddhism or Hinduism, but often a later religion. He converts gets isolated and thats it. He is also a bad techer and bad warmonger.
Other weak AIs: Sitting Bull, Mao, Gilgamesch

That's exactly what I've seen from Bismarck as well. Super passive and has a fear factor equivalent to Santa Claus. Gilgamesh on the other hand has always been a wicked competitor in my games.

So what would help Tokogawa out? I could make an extra trait, but if one plays a game with random assets this little "helper" trait would hurt anyone who inherits it. I also thought about changing the "unique building cost" - but if a civ isn't able t defend itself, that would just make a lot of good buildings for people to take over (or are unique buildings always destroyed when taking over a city?)

Saladin is difficult: He is a religious fanatic like Isabel or Brennus, but the other ones go straight for their religions and spread them. Although Saladin starts with mysticism he rarely founds Buddhism or Hinduism, but often a later religion. He converts gets isolated and thats it. He is also a bad techer and bad warmonger.
Other weak AIs: Sitting Bull, Mao, Gilgamesch

When I've played against Gilgamesh, he's always managed to conquer a big empire, Mehmed-style.

Saladin has consistently been one of the best AI leaders in my games. He always ends up being worshipped by most other AIs, building lots of wonders, being in the top tier techwise, and controlling a huge empire mostly acquired peacefully. If attacked, he usually ends up taking a few cities and vassalising his aggressor (who will inevitably end up becoming a diplomatic pariah if he does not become Saladin's vassal). Also, he always seems to found Judaism, and for the most part does an acceptable job of spreading it. As far as I can tell, he achieves this by virtue of a very balanced game strategy, rather than the all-or-nothing pure war/pure tech approach of some of the other high-performing leaders.

Maybe i can't really judge Gilgamesch, because as a BtS Leader he is stil new, and it is from my few experiences with him. I get the feeling he is a bit coded to go the espionage way. It would make sense, regarding his UB, but espionage can be hindering for the AI because they dont use it effectively.
My experiences with Saladin are exactly opposite: I agree, he often founds Judaism, but if other religions are already established, this puts him in diplomatic trouble. And i have never seen him win those resulting religious wars.
But experiences are probably not of a general value, so you might be right as well.
Others: Mao in my opinion has one of the weakest trait combinations possible. Isabella is coded to be absolutely insane as AI. Her high religious modifier is not that problematic. More so it is her aim to found not only one religioon but if possible all. I have often seen her go directly Buddhism, Hinduism and Judaism. That means Madrid is often triple holy city, but she has done nothing else for her development. Even more so: She can't control how her own religions spreads and so she creates those religious enemies among her better developed neighbours.

My experiences with Saladin are exactly opposite: I agree, he often founds Judaism, but if other religions are already established, this puts him in diplomatic trouble. And i have never seen him win those resulting religious wars.
But experiences are probably not of a general value, so you might be right as well.

Plenty of people here have had similar experiences with him to yours. There are also people who've had similar experiences to me, but I think I'm the one in the minority. It's worth remembering that, while he's done well in "all of my games", my games take about 60 hours, and I only get to play for about 5 hours a week. "All my games with Saladin" ~= 3. :)

Isabella is coded to be absolutely insane as AI. Her high religious modifier is not that problematic. More so it is her aim to found not only one religioon but if possible all. I have often seen her go directly Buddhism, Hinduism and Judaism. That means Madrid is often triple holy city, but she has done nothing else for her development. Even more so: She can't control how her own religions spreads and so she creates those religious enemies among her better developed neighbours.

I dunno, I'd say the religious diplomatic modifiers are quite a handicap. Strategically, it's practically irrelevent whether a civ shares your religion or not (especially if you don't even have the holy city), so any AI who primarily bases their diplomatic relations on that factor has a serious handicap. Furthermore, Isabella is programmed to build a smaller-than-average army but to be very fearless about declaring war against a stronger opponent. It's a recipe for trouble. She'll do well occasionally, but the deck is stacked against her, due to her psychotic personality.

Tokugawa has done fairly well for himself in some of my BtS games. With the more aggressive AI, he actually occassionally makes use of his traits in warfare. Saw him wail on Mansa Musa a few times.

On the other hand, Isabella hasn't performed well in a few of my games. It seems like she invests way too much in spreading religion and not enough in expansion/economy/military. I might just be imagining that though.

My vote's for Monty. Most of the games I play, he ends up somebody's vassal. Probably because he invests little in tech and a lot in soldiers, then proceeds to use them very stupidly.

That's the Monty I know :)

Wow, Tokugawa is dominating this poll...

Guess why?

I voted for Toku, Monty, Izzy, Saladin, Wang Kon, Other EDIT: And Peter and Sitting Bull, btw.

May I ask why AIs such as Cyrus, Asoka or the greeks are in the poll instead of someone more plausible, Mansa Musa, per example?

Toku, Mao, you know the drill.

May I ask why AIs such as Cyrus, Asoka or the greeks are in the poll instead of someone more plausible, Mansa Musa, per example?

Yes, their inclusion is odd, though I wouldn't include Mansa either; in my games he trades well so does well. He also has decent traits, a good UB, and an antirush UU. What are your experiences with him?

Yes, their inclusion is odd, though I wouldn't include Mansa either; in my games he trades well so does well. He also has decent traits, a good UB, and an antirush UU. What are your experiences with him?

I agree that I cuold've grabbed a better example, but he trades tech too much and at too lousy ratios. He also often grabs a late religion that gets him no friends at all. I often find him with Taoism. His UB is kinda bunk IMHO, his UU is best for AIs, agreed, and his traits are good (fin is always nice), but have poor synergy. I find Cyrus to be miles better than Mansa Musa, and the greeks aswell for that matter. Also, Mansa hasn't really got the guts for military and/or backstabs unless you're really, really weak. In my opinion.

Any protective civ, really.

Any protective civ, really.

Churchill ranks top-half on my table.

Wang Kon for me. often grabs an early religion, never spreads it, and builds wonders (eg great wall/stonehenge) before building any cities, and consequently ends up as axe bait for Shaka, Alex or Ragnar. I have heard he can become a powerhouse if left alone later in the game, he just never lasts that long in mine

Tokugawa of course, I always end up killing him off using units 2 generations ahead of his. His isolation and its policies just come back to kick his ass when he is outtech by everyone and left alone to rot and die.

Isabella, She never does anything but pray. Many times I see her leave expansion alone to die as she begins to churn out more missionaries than settlers. Once I had her as a close neighbour, she sent me a missonary at around 2500BC. 20 Turns later when I marched into Buddhist-Jewish Holy city, i find 1 archer, 2 warriors, 1 worker and 2 missioraries. The only thing in Madrid was a temple, a Monastry and a Granary....

Anyway. Yes, Tokugawa. He once gave me a large city of his in exchange for a spare clam.

yea right, you can only trade cities for cities or gift for free. you can't mix resources and cities for trade. liar...

this is a tough question because ALL are good in given situations...

Set it up on agg AI diety and all are good =)

Tokugawa has never been anything special in my games, but I do remember one game where I had a long, bruising, barely-won war with him (the kind where by the time you finally win, another AI is ready to take all the spoils from your Redcoats by killing them with Helicopter Gunships). Montezuma is usually pretty inept too, but my current game has made me revise my overall impression of him. He's vassalized Huyana Capac, is the score leader now in the early 20th century, and is making me scramble with some very nicely done (and unending) amphibious invasions. And he just got Destroyers, so I need to figure out a way to get oil pronto, or it's all over.

Isabella, on the other hand, never does well. And I've seen her more than any other AI, I think, because she ends up in 90% of my games for some reason. She just never has enough troops, or advanced enough troops, to keep declaring war on people like she does.

dear FIRAXIS:

For Civ V, please do not cripple Japan (like Civ 3 and 4). do you have a deep rooted hate for the Japanese and do not want to see them do well as AI? Its nonsense that they make them an isolationist that remains crippled in most games because they wanted to make them seem realistic. yeah... right...that's why mali is the most scientifically advanced race in the world and mexicans (aztecs) are bloodthirsty warmongers. i understand historical realism, but c'mon this crippling of Japan is getting pretty stupid and old...

trade is without doubt one of the most crucial elements to succeeding in this game. creating a civ that when AI controls pretty much neglects trade is absurd.

Toku may be a bit foolish, but at least he defends himself. Sitting Bull is a complete putz. I've never seen him win a battle, even against other AI. 75% of the time I see him, he is vassalized to another AI.

Other. Ive NEVER seen Lincoln do well, while I have seen Toku do well a couple times (though those times are rare)

I have to defend Saladin and Mansa Musa. Mansa Musa is a great researcher, and very often I find him with a strong peaceful empire. In fact when I play with him on the same map, I try not to let him tech to fast, but if I find him on another continent he is almost always the strongest civ there.

Saladin too has a large peaceful empire, and I reckon he does spread his religion. I just hate him because he's a religion fanatic.

Given these poll results and insightful comments, what now? How about we come up with some tweaks that make Tokugawa into a decent leader?

Given these poll results and insightful comments, what now? How about we come up with some tweaks that make Tokugawa into a decent leader?

I think the main problem with Tok is economic. So maybe a special trait that offsets that loss?

I think Toku's main problem is his refusal to open borders and trade techs. He needs to stay more competitive tech-wise in the early game so that he can use his UB (for what it's worth).

Does he really have to be competant? It's not such a big deal if there's one leader who's not as good as the rest - there has to be a last place. It'd only be an issue if he was easier to play against in a duel than other leaders, but that's not the case at all; by definition, his trading tactics are sensible when he only has one opponent. If there are multiple opponents, it's not a disaster if one falls by the wayside; in fact, it might strengthen your other rivals.

Does he really have to be competant? It's not such a big deal if there's one leader who's not as good as the rest - there has to be a last place. It'd only be an issue if he was easier to play against in a duel than other leaders, but that's not the case at all; by definition, his trading tactics are sensible when he only has one opponent. If there are multiple opponents, it's not a disaster if one falls by the wayside; in fact, it might strengthen your other rivals.

Yes that's true. But the predictability ruins some of the gameplay for those of us that play larger maps/more civs. Each game I play - I like to see who can be the AI leaders. Tok and Isabella being at the bottom every single game removes some of the surprise.

Some may have wondered why I have the Greek & Roman leaders in the list? For some bizarre reason all my games as of late... they've been horrid and usually annhilated.

@jpinard

you should play with the "random personalities" box checked. Then the predictability would disappear.

^ This poll was about how AI plays.

Tokugawa & Sitting Bull tend to be last in score on my games (btw, according to BtS reference sheet SB never builds wonders .. which could help with his philosophical trait).

That's odd, because Sitting Bull built the Taj Mahal in my latest game. He used a Great Engineer to do it, if that means anything.

@jpinard

you should play with the "random personalities" box checked. Then the predictability would disappear.

Doesn't that hurt the AI capabilities overall though? I was under the impression UU's/UB's were tied to inherent values in the leader traits xml?

Sitting Bull and Tokugawa haven't ever even looked like being a decent civ from my experiences.

Isabella can pull it together if her religious machinations work out. But I have wiped her out with a single axeman before when she was defending her triple holy city capital with one warrior. She's often doomed by her neglect for all things military combined with her crazy religious warmongering. But she can also end up "boss" of a continent with several foreign armies to back her up, which is a nightmare.

I also kind of like Tokugawa's extreme isolationism, though it would be nice if he pulled it off a little more successfully. He needs to be more aggressive, particularly early on when his isolationism isn't hurting him so much. Espionage would also help make up for his distaste for trade.

The peace loving civs play out exactly as they should. They have a good chance of being on the top of the pile if they can avoid war.

The crazy warmongers also do well if they can capitalise on their adventures. Shaka is usually very strong. Monty usually shoots himself in the foot, but he's a massive headache for all around him. Genghis Khan seems more moderate in my games, but ends up backwards. The Persians always seem successful, and the Greeks usually end up boxed in and diplomatically isolated.

Haha, 180%!

Anyway. Yes, Tokugawa. He once gave me a large city of his in exchange for a spare clam.

dude, are you playing on the level that's easier than beginner?

Given these poll results and insightful comments, what now? How about we come up with some tweaks that make Tokugawa into a decent leader?

The solution is to use him yourself. Actually, to fix Japan, give them EMperor Meiji, and make him not suck.

Alternatively, give them Takezo Kensei, with the traits, Immortal/Heroic (or nerdy/time travel)

So what would help Tokogawa out? I could make an extra trait, but if one plays a game with random assets this little "helper" trait would hurt anyone who inherits it. I also thought about changing the "unique building cost" - but if a civ isn't able t defend itself, that would just make a lot of good buildings for people to take over (or are unique buildings always destroyed when taking over a city?)

Tokugavas problem are not his traits (they are not the strongest, thats true). His problem is playing like a moron. Giving him a extra trait will not help here - he will still be playing like a moron. Neither will giving him a extra trait make him less predictable. He just does not leverage his traits.

What needs fixing is his personality.

Aggressive is not the strongest and Protective is the weakest trait in my opinion. Still, they have some kind of a synergy - both giving free promotions. He is obviously meant to be a warmonger. So what he needs to do is mass troops and go to war. As soon as he can. Then - if his war is succesful - he has a chance to stay competetive later, due to the size of his empire.

Toku (duh) Monty, Alex, and Genghis (if they don't do well early they fall behind)

Yes that's true. But the predictability ruins some of the gameplay for those of us that play larger maps/more civs. Each game I play - I like to see who can be the AI leaders. Tok and Isabella being at the bottom every single game removes some of the surprise.

Tokugawa has not been at the bottom of every single game I've played. He can do quite well militarily. Okay, he does usually lose - I voted for him in this poll - but it's not 100% predictable, and I don't see why some AIs shouldn't lose more often than others. Monty's strategy is insane, but I think he's a worthwhile part of the game. I'd say the same about Toku - a lot of people (perhaps not you, jpinard, but certainly many others) say he should be removed because he just gets in the way and won't trade. These are probably the same people who say the game shouldn't have any deserts or mountain peaks. Not everything in the game has to be useful; even if Tokugawa's only function is to get in the way, it's fine by me.

Doesn't that hurt the AI capabilities overall though? I was under the impression UU's/UB's were tied to inherent values in the leader traits xml?

That depends on what you mean. Some/most UBs were designed after the traits had been allocated, and presumably the designers tried to give them reasonable synergy. Ditto the AIs' "personalities". However, the AI don't see their UBs as being different from any other UBs; they're not programmed to use them in a special way. They do understand the benefits, but they don't have code that specifically says "I must use this a lot because it's my UB". By my understanding, Saladin is aware that his Madrassa gives more culture than a theatre, but not that it's special just because it happens to be his UB. However, all leaders have a preference for certain categories of building, tech, etc, and in most cases this means they're reasonably keen to build their UB (as well as other buildings in the same category).

As such, you can mix and match leaders, civs and even personalities, and the only problem with be a lack of synergy in some cases (or too much synergy in others).