The AI has no personalities

Randomized? That sucks and makes no sense.

i have found a tiny bit of personality as well.
catherine is a warmongering whore,excuse my language, and she also hates me no matter what.
gandhi takes advantage of his fundamentalism early on to attack everybody in middle ages.
Alexander is relatively peaceful and doesnt build too many cities, and techs nicely.
Hatshetup isn't so much peaceful as she is not demanding, she tends to not bother me and try and work her way up to a culture victory.

those are all the ones ive noticed straight off.
EDIT: woops didnt read wat anybody else wrote sorry.
ummm yea, the randomized thing, that makes sense somewhat but gandhi also certainly is a warmonger, no matter what. at least to me, even in games that other people are leaving me alone... gandhi will still attack.

bonafide11 said:

Seriously, everyone seems to be completely missing the point. You guys are reading into the AI Civs personality too much, attempting to identify a particular behavioral pattern for each Civ.

Click to expand...

Isn't that what a personality is? A particular behavior pattern? That layout of patterns is what I have witnessed for my 8 games I have played. They don't seem too random, but based on my level and military build up they do change their aggression level slightly.

And if they were as widely random as you suggest, I really wouldn't give rodents rectum. I always pick the random personalities check on the custom game while playing civ 4 anyway.

What fun is always knowing Gandhi is a push over and Monty is a bully? Do you like playing chess against somebody who always makes the same 10 opening moves?

What personalities are we on about guys?

I've yet to see any evidence that the AI in Civ Rev has any 'personality' at all, (other than a very binary state of being either at war with you, or NOT).

Which to me suggests that an algorithm is being used, rather than a true AI.

The first game I ever played where nuclear weapons were used was when Gandhi nuked one of my cities. That was in Civ 1. I will never trust them again.

Gandhi hates me

I am trying to monitor if the behavior of AIs in CivRev are random. So far they seem consistent. The Mongols are always horrible. The Russians are consistantly agressive too. Not sure about this random claim.

The problem is the makers of the game did not make a good enough AI, so they needed the AI to cheat and gang up on you to have a chance, its really pathatic. Lets look at another game, NBA live 09, they have this DNA feature that shows the percentage of time at a certain spot, that they go left, right, or shoot, thats amazing. Civ rev can't even make AI thats different from each other, except for Greeks. There's, i guess 3 types of AI
1. domination forever
2. domination sometimes
3. no domination

And the AI all go for the technology, only 1 or 2 in the game go for something else

you are talking about 15 or so generations of nba live to work on their ai for consoles

im not sure its real fair to compare a first generation console game to that

I don't know, Some are constantly at me (Mongols, China, Zulu)... while others are unpredictable (I've had games where Gandhi doesn't even threaten me, and he was at my border, not on some far away island... but then others where he is always breathing down me neck... also the Brits do this).... and some, never attack me... evar (The Greeks, The Romans)

Seriously, the AI has no personalities, why are you people still trying to figure this out? Sid said this in an interview some time back.

Jewman said:

i have found a tiny bit of personality as well.
catherine is a warmongering whore,excuse my language, and she also hates me no matter what.
gandhi takes advantage of his fundamentalism early on to attack everybody in middle ages.
Alexander is relatively peaceful and doesnt build too many cities, and techs nicely.
Hatshetup isn't so much peaceful as she is not demanding, she tends to not bother me and try and work her way up to a culture victory.

Click to expand...

That is EXACTLY what I experience as well. Exactly.

I've also noticed that the Aztecs play VERY similarly to how Alexander does. One city, real nice and friendly. Techs in a friendly manner... very odd.

Actually, now that I think about it, I think there is a set number of personalities we see each game. Usually there is:

1. An ally to us. Usually builds 1 to 2 cities and techs up in a non-military fashion and sells techs to us for good prices.

2. A military enemy to us, usually in the shape of Catherine.

3. A cultural or science enemy to us. They'll declare war just because they are our enemy. They'll send a few units to attack us. Usually Ghandi or China.

4. Neutral. They swing either way.

This is about how it goes every game for me. I rarely get other personalities and, if I do, they usually fit into the neutral category. I do bet that there is some sort of personality list where the varying civs have differing values and the game requires a certain number of personalities to be present at any given time.

So we have the 4 above personalities and each enemy civ has a chance of being one of them and the chance depends on the value that was given to the civ. We may see something like...

Warmonger:
Catherine - 1 (highest)
Alexander - 4 (lowest)

Peaceful Ally:
Alexander - 1
Catherine - 4

This would explain the random personalities as well as the 'set in stone' personalities. Of course, if you don't see any Warmongering enemies in the game, you may see a generally peaceful civ, like India, be a warmonger.

Every civ uses the exact same randomizing calculation as to wether they go to war or not. The only difference is that Greece starts with Democracy and cant declare war, unless it changes Government. Which it only seems to do near end game, when you are close to a win.

Had they used a different randomizer with each civ. Say 5% for Ghandi and 95% for Genghis and arrange the others accordingly. It would have made each game completely different and IMO better.

That being said, we'd probably be discussing the order they were placed in and how I would have put leader A way ahead of leader B etc etc.