Which civs do u find the AI just can't play right and are therfore allways easy to beat by you or other AI's?

Here's my list:

Native Americans - They are NEVER very advanced, even if they had a good start. And they aren't a big military builder either. Frankly, I can't figure out what they are doing, when apperently aren't building either science nor military :S

Japan - Well, he never makes any friends, so he isn't a good techer. And because he has no friends, you can easily DoW him without any danger. as long as he doesn't get rifles, he's kinda easy :)

Pericles - For some reason, I've NEVER had any problems with this guy. Not that advanced mostly, not a big military genious. He just doesn't have a big role in my games and are therefore an easy target.

Lemme here your lists :D

native Americans are the best defensive civ in th game at the start

Yeah, but have you ever seen native americans being close as score leader? :) I haven't

Hatshepsut is perfect bashing material. Even after you've dowed twice on her she'll still not be very mad at you, open borders the next turn and be available for all tech trades again.

In BOTM 02 I sucked her dry while taking cities from her at the same time. She ended up as my vassal and in the process I got quite a few techs from her (she made good deals but since I was going to vassalize her anyway that was not a problem).

So in a sense Hattie is very easy to beat.

I just won a game with native Americans. Great at defence and not bad at rushing either. It's a pity the AI does not play them more aggressively.

Would of said Americans. Their UU and UB come far too late to be useful. They dont often get the first 3 starting religions either. Cant remember seeing them in late gameplay.

The Native Americans are a nightmare to rush in the early game, but I've never seen them come close to winning due to their tendency to fall way behind in the tech race. Probably due to the AI personality. Tokuwaga is another one who never presents much of a problem - the isolationist approach always results in him getting wiped out in the pre-industrial stage of the game.

Gandhi is usually easy to wipe out very early with an axe rush.

Gandhi, Hatshepsut, Pericles and Isabella.

The just don't build military.

I play random personalities so I can't expect how each civ will play their game.

Mansa is also easy to beat even at tech parity because he just doesn't build enough units, and he's quick to capitulate too.

Frederick also tends to end up as a vassal... and even if he doesn't, he occasionally commits suicide in the industrial age. He happily builds lots of production modifiers even if he can't take the health penalties.

eh... monty anyone :D

Frederick also tends to end up as a vassal... and even if he doesn't, he occasionally commits suicide in the industrial age. He happily builds lots of production modifiers even if he can't take the health penalties.

Yeah i've seen that happen. I couldn't believe it when i saw size 1 cities in the 1800s.

He is coded to favour production, he gets a double discount to factories with coal (do AIs have a preference for discounted buildings even beyond their normal hardcoded tendencies?) and he doesn't tend to expand very much (few health resources). Quite a deadly combination :)

I haven't seen anything that extreme in my games yet (although I recall a thread about an entirely depopulated Germany somewhere on these forums... was that yous?), but cities half the size of everyone elses seem depressingly common for him.

The easiest civs. Hm....

Easiest to rush:

Gandhi
Hatshepsut
Frederick

all build little military

Easiest to beat long term:

Wang Kon (almost always does poorly in my games)
Tokugawa (same reason as Wang Kon)
Sitting Bull (see "Wang Kon" and "Tokugawa" reasons)
Genghis Khan, Montezuma, etc. (techs too slowly)

I play random personalities so I can't expect how each civ will play their game.

The problem with this, I think anyway is that you can end up with a personality that doesn't match their bonuses making the AI even easier.

As for me, Hattie never seems to perform well in the early or late game. Most of the others really depend on the map and their neighbors. I had a recent game with Mansa, Ghandi and Elizabeth on a separate continent. None of them hard to beat militarily, but their combined tech pace was pretty impressive.

I've seen hatty force capitulation out of shaka...

Walkovers:

1. Ghandi
2. Sitting Bull/toku/no trade idiots if they spawn far away (don't want idiocy rubbing off on my people)
3. Asoka
4. All American leaders (sadly)
5. Peter/Stalin (rexing backstabby cathy is DANGEROUS though)
6. The english queens, oddly.
7. Ghengis khan
8. Vikings

Most of these leaders can be dangerous if the situation favors them, but generally they're just terrible and suck utterly without a good start of a favorable religious situation to them. Mansa gets an honorable mention here, as he's very rarely a threat to beat me himself, but he trades techs to people who can cause me problems. Mansa feeding an unfriendly cathy techs is really obnoxious...she can get so huge lol.

The problem with this, I think anyway is that you can end up with a personality that doesn't match their bonuses making the AI even easier.

I considered playing with random personalities but I'm not sure what is random. What bonuses (that aren't matching their personalities) are you talking about? Do you mean the relation bonuses in diplomacy, or the traits?

What's random?!

I'd just like to see someone else than Zara at the top of the scoreboard once in a while.

I considered playing with random personalities but I'm not sure what is random. What bonuses (that aren't matching their personalities) are you talking about? Do you mean the relation bonuses in diplomacy, or the traits?

What's random?!

I'd just like to see someone else than Zara at the top of the scoreboard once in a while.

Having montezuma with ghandi's personality would be an EXCELLENT example of a leader's personality suddenly not matching his civ. Also, ghandi would pretty much never make use of aggressive.

Could you picture boudica with freddy or hattie's personality? Ugly.

Hatty, definitely. She'll build tons of wonders, but no military...

Brennus is always on someone's leash (hopefully mine; he's a great vassal). Cyrus never seems to do very well, but this is probably a case of the AI not being able to take advantage of the traits (see Elizabeth). The Americans always seem at the bottom and constantly dogpiled.

I still don't understand. If Montezuma had Ghandi's personality, then wouldn't he just play like Ghandi? What would make him worse than Ghandi himself? Just that he wouldn't use his Jaguars?

I think the general idea is that their personalities and traits tend to match up.

So if you take monty or shaka, they're both insane war mongrels. However, they both get the aggressive traits which obviously meshes well with war-mongrels.

If you have random personalities and gandhi becomes an insane war mongrel like a normal shaka, well gandhi's traits are ind +spi. Neither of those really support an aggressive war style.

The differences in some cases can be pretty minor, or sometimes they can be fairly significant. Lacking the synergy won't break any civ, but it will certainly weaken them.

Hattie and Gandhi are definitely the easiest to kill off in the early going.

Hatties likes to do a version of one-city-challenge early on where she tries to found as many religions and spam as many wonders all in her capital, only to protect it with like 2 non-upgraded archers.

Gandhi likes to found an early religion, then spam missionaries and spread the religion over the entire continent. Perhaps true to the real-life Gandhi, he ends up uniting his neighbors under one faith and promoting peace. However, he also doesn't focus on military.

If either of these leaders survive to the medieval age without vassalizing, then both are always real threats to steal a diplomatic or cultural win.

Actually, Phi/Spi is a wonderful trait combination for a warmonger. Not that the AI would make very good use of them (they generally suck exploiting Phi), but Suryavarman and Catherine are some of the most credible military threats, without hardcore military traits.

I see a problem only in the other scenario... peaceful AIs with military traits would suck.

I think the general idea is that their personalities and traits tend to match up.

So if you take monty or shaka, they're both insane war mongrels. However, they both get the aggressive traits which obviously meshes well with war-mongrels.

If you have random personalities and gandhi becomes an insane war mongrel like a normal shaka, well gandhi's traits are ind +spi. Neither of those really support an aggressive war style.

The differences in some cases can be pretty minor, or sometimes they can be fairly significant. Lacking the synergy won't break any civ, but it will certainly weaken them.


whats a war mongrel? a breed between napoleon and khan? or a mix between a bulldog and a shih tzu?

anyhoo monty is easy to beat because he cant tech well, shaka is hard to beat because he does tech well.

I play random personalities so I can't expect how each civ will play their game.

I'm with Beatrix202 here.

I've been enjoying the game with Random Personalities and Unrestricted Leaders. There's just something enjoyable watching Gandhi backstab you or Montezuma want to endless trade techs with you.

I find myself crushing Isabella quite a bit. She's not much of a techer. Sitting Bull is the most annoying AI in the game, demanding tribute all the time, regardless of power ranks. I don't think I've ever been friendly with that guy. The only thing is, when to take him out? He's difficult to take out early with his uber archers, and once you get cannons and rifles you really ought to set your sights a bit higher. you know you can fight a war or two and then go after sitting bull and he'll still have the longbows he built 500 years ago.

I never seem to have any problems with Asoka, Zara has always been annoying to me, yet in my latest game he folded after I took two of his cities. Usually he's on another continent and techs like mad and becomes hard as hell to take over, but he went down quick on a pangaea map.

When going for HOF rush games, I always play against Roosevelt, Asoka and on larger maps, Gandhi, and any others whose UUs or traits don't go against mine.

Frederick also tends to end up as a vassal... and even if he doesn't, he occasionally commits suicide in the industrial age. He happily builds lots of production modifiers even if he can't take the health penalties.

Fred is kind of an oddball.

If he falls behind, he seems to fall WAY behind, but if he gets the lead he seems to do much better. It seems that he is usually at the top or bottom of the list.