Washington... its called the tutorials, you should take them.
- Thread starter Jerman
- Start date
ense7en
n7
So 2 games in a row, Before I could meet the guy, The Dollar bill gets conquered within a heartbeat. He's always conquered by turn 150, But first the Attila then Hiawatha. IDK how bad do you think Washington's AI is
There are some civs that tend to end up on top of the heap more consistently than others.
Two games does not represent any sort of statistical pattern.
If you play two hundred games you'll see he will do just great in many of them, and badly in many of them
In my experience he's actually easily in the top half of civs as he's very expansionistic (i know, not a word).
You can see the AI "flavors" for ingame tendencies.
IIRC, each game takes those + a dice roll of -2 to +2 to those values.
Spoiler :
I could quote both of u guys and agree with both of u . BUT the last two games George was one of the leaders. I had to take him down late game . I would of agreed before that . Actually he is one of the leaders I don 't see much for some reason . My games don 't generate him much for some reason .
Aaron90495
King
There are some civs that tend to end up on top of the heap more consistently than others.
Two games does not represent any sort of statistical pattern.
If you play two hundred games you'll see he will do just great in many of them, and badly in many of them
In my experience he's actually easily in the top half of civs as he's very expansionistic (i know, not a word).
You can see the AI "flavors" for ingame tendencies.
IIRC, each game takes those + a dice roll of -2 to +2 to those values.
Spoiler :
I never really looked in-depth at the chart before and just noticed something: Alex only has a THREE for CS competitiveness. That can't be right.
Can it?
He tends to take Patronage, especially the policy that makes other civs' influence drop everywhere. That plus Hellenic League means he doesn't even need to try to grab city-states and if there's competitors, well, that's what wars are for...
e: the chart is pretty wonky and translates things ingame hilariously though. For example, Hiawatha is supposed to be one of the more "peaceful" leaders out there - yet every game he is aggressive as hell, covets your lands and will declare war if you are neighbors/have his wonders etc.
Aaron90495
King
Makes sense. I guess if someone like Hiawatha has 10 factors going "against" you but has 2 factors that relate to peace...well, prepare for you. And with the AI coding in CiV, you're never gonna have a lack of negative diplo hits with the AI.
sufficiency
King
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2013
- Messages
- 682
Washington is actually pretty dangerous. He expands quickly, plays somewhat conservatively, and likes to go for science victory.
Getting destroyed by Hiawatha/Attila doesn't really say much about him, consider those two AIs are also pretty dangerous.
If you are talking about bad, I feel that Haile Selassie, Pacal, Gangdhi, and Theodora are the least dangerous AIs because they tend to grow tall and shoot for cultural victory.
Getting destroyed by Hiawatha/Attila doesn't really say much about him, consider those two AIs are also pretty dangerous.
If you are talking about bad, I feel that Haile Selassie, Pacal, Gangdhi, and Theodora are the least dangerous AIs because they tend to grow tall and shoot for cultural victory.
Spoiler :
Usually Cultural, but then when you have Runaway Napoleon as a neighbor, that too tends to be hard
Also from the same game he wiped out Sweden and was being just as much of a warmongering prick as that Corsican
Aaron90495
King
Seriously, who's the moron who decided that AI Pacal should grow TALL? The Maya are the hands-down best ICS civ in the game, yet they're programmed to go tall and cultural...
)
sufficiency
King
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2013
- Messages
- 682
Seriously, who's the moron who decided that AI Pacal should grow TALL? The Maya are the hands-down best ICS civ in the game, yet they're programmed to go tall and cultural...
The same can be said about Haile Selassie tbh. Ethiopia is pretty broken when it comes to domination victory... but nope, he rarely expands and plays extremely conservatively.
Then there is Theodora, who fails to found a religion in 50% of my games.
There are a few other ones which I feel are not very dangerous. Rammy, Ramkham, Harun. IMO Monty is also not that dangerous once he passes through
There are some civs that tend to end up on top of the heap more consistently than others.
Two games does not represent any sort of statistical pattern.
If you play two hundred games you'll see he will do just great in many of them, and badly in many of them
In my experience he's actually easily in the top half of civs as he's very expansionistic (i know, not a word).
You can see the AI "flavors" for ingame tendencies.
IIRC, each game takes those + a dice roll of -2 to +2 to those values.
Spoiler :
I feel that the flavour chart is very deceptive. Even though Washington seems to be pretty friendly and not very aggressive (from the chart), I don't think that's what is happening in game. In fact, Hiawatha behaves very similarly to Washington, yet he is commonly regarded as one of the most dangerous AIs. Even though Washington has a very low score on aggressiveness, the fact that he expands everywhere means he WILL eventually be "forced" to turn aggressive when he starts to covet EVERYONE's land.
MarauderCH
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2012
- Messages
- 282
So 2 games in a row, Before I could meet the guy, The Dollar bill gets conquered within a heartbeat. He's always conquered by turn 150, But first the Attila then Hiawatha. IDK how bad do you think Washington's AI is
Attila is an early warmonger and Hiawatha is a powerhouse. A lot of civs would fair badly starting next to those two civs.
Bandersnatching
Warlord
- Joined
- May 14, 2012
- Messages
- 248
In most games I've played against Washington, he either gets eaten alive in the early game or becomes one of/the most powerful civ. His hyper-expansionism is more noticeable in the king and emperor difficulties, I think, which is where I've played most of my games.
If you want a civ that nearly always does poorly, that'd be Kamehameha. It's kind of sad, because I like the civ, but Polynesia has only ever done well one time in all of my games.
Does anybody have any ideas about why Kamehameha's flavors make him so weak?
If you want a civ that nearly always does poorly, that'd be Kamehameha. It's kind of sad, because I like the civ, but Polynesia has only ever done well one time in all of my games.
Does anybody have any ideas about why Kamehameha's flavors make him so weak?
Anfillius
Chieftain
This is the beauty of Civ. In the games I've played that had Polynesia, they were always the high-tech civ I had to take down late in the game to secure a win. I'm sure there are patterns, but from what I've seen you can't count anyone out.
Unresolved
King
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2012
- Messages
- 956
I'd guess it's because Polynesia's uniques boost ruin-finding and culture. The AI is pretty awful at finding ruins, so that diminishes the benefit of his UA. And the AI will never win by culture, so the Moai aren't very useful to them either.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 18,949
When I see America in the game, they are usually a middling civ if they survive the early warmongers.
Similar threads
