Just curious if anyone's ever looked at this problem. Have three people that I play against, but we want to play a challenging game against a bunch of computer-controlled civs. Any suggestions as to which civilizations the AI tends to play best?

In my own experience (multiplayer on Monarch / Emperor) France, Netherlands and America are strong every single game.

Japan, Aztecs, Iroquis, Mongols, Carthage, Zulu, England, Spain and Portugal tend do do less well.

The others are either inbetween or haven't been included enough in my games for me to judge.

Some civs do very well in some games and very poorly in others. Greece, China, India, Egypt, Russia, Persia and Arabia belong to that category.

When playing online, most civs are pretty stupid and very easy to over run in the ancient age and early middle age. France especially never seems to do well in MP..

The AI tend to play France, Iroquois and Arabs pretty good in my games :scan: . I also have problems with Netherlands, they grow real fast
like the Iroquois :eek: :confused: .

So far in the game, the Arabs and French are both doing well...it's about 1400AD, Arabs are the biggest civilization and have the highest score of all, and the French have the most culture. (We're playing on Monarch). The Russians are doing okay, but not great, the Vikings are hanging on, and the Zulus got wiped out, largely by the Arabs (although two human players grabbed some choice Zulu land before they were crushed). So this game supports the Arabs/French contention....

For me:
Zuland, America, and Ottomans always pwn
but
india, japan, china, france, mongolia, persia can never do anything

Seems to be a trend...AI has trouble with 'militaristic' civs, but industrious, scientific, and (if given a good start and NOT combined with militaristic,) expansionist tend to do better. I've never seen Mongols, Vikings, Zulus, or Romans ever make it to the end game with a halfways decent position.