Sometimes i noticed that an AI civ, Civ X for example, would perform extremely well in a game, but perform noticably weaker in another similar game.
For example, Egypt in one game had became the world power but in another, it was a third world. In both games Egypt had similar land size, neighbours, location and luxuries.
Also, for example, Brazil in one game had the biggest cultural output and the most wonders. In a similar game in a similar map, with similar(near similar) civs, it fails.
Also, sometimes why does a much smaller, little luxury civ perform so much better compared to a larger one?
Example, India in one game had very few luxuries and had one of the smallest land areas, but its tech was no. 1, reached modern era while others just started industrial, had the most GNP, Gold per turn, etc etc. It seems as though India was cheating because its size cannot possibly enable it to be so overpowered.
For example, Egypt in one game had became the world power but in another, it was a third world. In both games Egypt had similar land size, neighbours, location and luxuries.
Also, for example, Brazil in one game had the biggest cultural output and the most wonders. In a similar game in a similar map, with similar(near similar) civs, it fails.
Also, sometimes why does a much smaller, little luxury civ perform so much better compared to a larger one?
Example, India in one game had very few luxuries and had one of the smallest land areas, but its tech was no. 1, reached modern era while others just started industrial, had the most GNP, Gold per turn, etc etc. It seems as though India was cheating because its size cannot possibly enable it to be so overpowered.