Sid conclusions

After playing an (unfinished albeit ongoing) Sid game (huge archipiélago, 80% water, 15 random civs) over the weekend I drew the conclusion that there are basically three different types of AI civs regardless of their traits and depending solely on their geographical location:

1. AI which started on very small islands and only managed to build five or less cities. They were stuck in the Ancient Ages all game through. They were extremely backwards technologically with huge AAs armies and massive upkeeps which hampered any further development or research.

2. AI which started on an intermediate island big enough to harbour 6-15 cities. They managed to research and trade and somehow plod ahead. They were kind of intermediate.

3. AIs which started in huge islands by themselves or in a huge island with other AI civs but they had a more powerful early UU (GS or berserk) and quickly took over their home continent wiping out the remaining civs on it. They became the game's powerhouses and the runaway Sid AIs which were way ahead of everyone else with more than 15 cities.

So my point is that the geographical starting location of the AIs completely determined how well they fared regardless of their civ traits.

And when two or three of them started on the same island, the one with the most powerful and early UU takes over the whole continent.

In deity the geographical location is important for an AI civ to thrive but it doesn't determine it as much. But in Sid in an archipiélago map the AIs just seem to fall in one of the three categories aforementioned. Is this so in your experience ?

The civ traits can always help you out but the starting area is one of the biggest factors in the game. I played one game myself on an isolated island. It was impossible to leave it due to the Ocean that surrounded it hardly any sea tiles at all. By the time i met the AI most of them had contact with each other and it was obvioues that a couple of them had wiped out loads of the others. I dont think the traits make a whole lot of difference to the AI its there starting location and surrounding area that counts.

Yes, that's the same I feel for a Sid archipiélago map. The starting location is key for the AI, the traits have very little to do with how they will fare in the game.

I think you're right. On Pangaea, situation is only slightly different. The good-starting AI's usually conquer the small ones (in very few turns). That's why runaway AI's are only on Sid.

I think one of the other key reasons why SID has a higher tendancy towards having runaway AIs is the fact it has the reduce production costs. Even with a few captured cities of another civilization this makes a major difference even just over as little as20 turns early in the game. The way that ca neasily mould a continet in the long term is massive. On the lower ones its got the same product as the human player so its not so noticeable especially on chieftan when if im mot mistaken it actually has a fair old penalty against it. Even if it were to get a fw more cities its still gotta long plod to get stuff up and running very well.

I would tend to agree, except that civs on an island that get 10-14 cities are not going to be over run by the AI for a long time. They will have at least 80 units per city by the late middle ages and most will be defenders.

This makes it hard for the AI to take them down, until they get good units. Humans can do it using armies.

Two civs on one landmass is a big help to one of the civs. They get a boost on research and trade until they take the other down. Mostly this is a function of the UU as long as it does not require a resource that they do not have.

Well, to quote Ision:
"In CIV III, THE single most important factor for any AIs overall performance is the quality of their start location and the immediate vicinity."
I think this describes your observations well. For the AI the rule is the poorer gets poorer and the rich richer. Because of this the initial AA expansion and UU's determines the fate of the AI.

That is precisely what I meant as drawn out conclusions from my Sid game, albeit expressed in a far better English than mine.

In most of my game on regent, the runaway is the civ that build SoZ. If the civ with SoZ cant take control its the civ with KT. A good start location always makes them stronger, but when a civ build either, they become overly powerful.

I believe it's mostly because build rate is so slow that a AC every 5 turns makes a big difference.

AC at Sid is of little concern in the AI's hands, but is very useful to the human. This is because you will have a unit with top AA attack (3) and very good defense (2) and retreat.

So you add in the start with 5 HP's for vets and you have your leader fishing tool. Since you get lots of landings, you can get lots of chances. You won't be invading so soon that the AC is the best you will see from the AI, hence not all that dangerous.

It is numbers that are your worry, not so much the AC. The 5 AC's they may have are not as big an issue as the stack of scores of what ever else they will use.

How big of a difference maker the SOZ is IME proportional to the size of the map. It can put an AI over the top on small and tiny. Definitely less of an effect on a bigger map.

I just noticed that forever-AA civs are on Deity too. I'm playing an archipelago map (not sure, but I think the first time) and there are 3 civs that are still in AA while the rest are finishing MA. And they don't do any research at all, neither they have any money. So the only explanation is that unit support is killing them.

I thought at first I could overcome Sid's problem of the AI remaining stuck in the AAs due to the huge unit upkeep costs lowering the aggression level from maximum to the minimum, so they built less units and allocated more cash to science and development.

But Vmxa, whose more Sid experienced, posted that in Sid even if the aggression level is at a minimum they still build tons of units which keep small civs of less than 5-6 cities stuck in the AAs all game long.

I had no idea this also happened at Deity. Must be the archipiélago maps which really hurts them. But it's nice to know so as to take advantage over them.

ive seen civs stuck in the ancient age on regent. it depends on the starting loc (i think). the civs which start out away from all the others build to many units too early as they runout of space to build cities.

It is the too a large extent the island map that leads to the production of too many units. They do not have the means to fight each other and lose troops or to gain land.

Eventually one can take some land, but the damage is done and the extra cities support will be used fast.

This is why it is often best to not kill of too many units, until you are on a big push. They will be able to build better ones and upgrade, if you relieve them of some of the support cost.

On contients and pangea they have contact and shared land and can bang each other.