Do you have complaints for the AI of specific Civs?

Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
9,571
I don't like how the Huns burn everything down whenever possible without even considering the advantages of keeping some of those cities.

I don't like how the Aztecs spread themselves thin by DWO like 3 civs at once- they could have probably took out one at a time, but the three of them combined will knock the Aztecs out of the game despite their decent military.

I don't like how Spain doesn't utilize their Conquistador as much as they could (given their UU)
 
I don't like the fact that Siam never stops spawning settlers and still keeps 40+ happiness even after I've gamed the congress to nuke his happiness.
 
I don't like the fact that Siam never stops spawning settlers and still keeps 40+ happiness even after I've gamed the congress to nuke his happiness.

That sounds like the AI is cheating for Siam then. What I'm talking about is when they make super obvious flawed choices that are so bad that only beginners might them.
 
Yeah, I have a complaint about Theodora's city placement... It is ok to have a bad start, but this is just ridiculous. Seriously, why? I explored that place with a Trireme later. Nothing. Only plain coast. And snow. Of course, there are some resources on top of it, but... really? There was a riverside-dyes-wheat placement a bit north, and a better one with tons of in-reach deer and silver. It grew to size 2 after a huge amount of turns.
 

Attachments

  • 2013-07-25_00001.jpg
    2013-07-25_00001.jpg
    313.3 KB · Views: 318
Yeah, I have a complaint about Theodora's city placement... It is ok to have a bad start, but this is just ridiculous. Seriously, why? I explored that place with a Trireme later. Nothing. Only plain coast. And snow. Of course, there are some resources on top of it, but... really? There was a riverside-dyes-wheat placement a bit north, and a better one with tons of in-reach deer and silver. It grew to size 2 after a huge amount of turns.

Yeah in terms of human players only a total noob would do that. I haven't really noticed any of the Civs having bad city placement on a regular basis. Considering the real byzantine empire wasn't near tundra I'm going to have be skeptical that they intentionally designed Byzantine's AI to do that.

Anyway, here's another complaint I forgot about:

China's AI always 1) hardly founds any cities and 2) rarely (if ever) attacks other civs. Considering their UU and UA they obviously aren't getting to near their full potential.
 
In my most recent game, I owned my whole continent except for some uninhabitable snow, and of all people to try, MOROCCO settled them.
 
Washington - has terrible diplomacy skills with no army to back it up. Will even get taken out by the most peaceful civs before turn 200.

Babylon - never plants his first GS he gets at writing.

Egypt - spams his UU to no end even against pikemen. Doesn't help that he's a wonder whore.

Dido - also spams their UU a ton even when few civs are utilizing navies. She also will backstab you and lose all her units in the process.

Atilla - will DoW you when none of his units are in sight of your borders, especially in the late game.

Honestly if they made every AI like Russia they would be much better. She expands a ton but keeps her military up to defend herself.
 
Honestly if they made every AI like Russia they would be much better. She expands a ton but keeps her military up to defend herself.

Well if every civ played exactly the same the game would be much less interesting IMO.

What I'm saying is that they should play somewhat within their own 'personalities' but that doesn't mean they get to suck.
 
I do not like Alex and his constant whines.

I also hate Sogahi, and how they can have 5 or 6 great spots for cities behind his capitol, yet he sends settler a 40 tiles towards me and places a city inside my 1st 3 rings. Like how smart is that? I am going to stop what I am doing and raze it.
 
Yeah, I have a complaint about Theodora's city placement... It is ok to have a bad start, but this is just ridiculous. Seriously, why? I explored that place with a Trireme later. Nothing. Only plain coast. And snow. Of course, there are some resources on top of it, but... really? There was a riverside-dyes-wheat placement a bit north, and a better one with tons of in-reach deer and silver. It grew to size 2 after a huge amount of turns.

There must be some oil on that snow you can't see yet (i think AI knows where resources are even before the get the tech).

I can't stand Elizabeth, she seems to denounce often for no reason.
 
Well if every civ played exactly the same the game would be much less interesting IMO.

What I'm saying is that they should play somewhat within their own 'personalities' but that doesn't mean they get to suck.

Yeah, I get what you mean. I just meant they should all expand when they can and still defend themselves but they can still maintain unique personalities.
 
I've only had Gajah Mada in two games as the AI so far, but both times He has gone small tall without utilizing his UA. This should never happen. He should always attempt to utilize his UA.
 
In general I hate how some civs are never peaceful and some civs are never warlike. Leader personalities are fun, but that's just way too predictable.
 
I think Sweden is too aggressive, he always picks honor in my games and rushes his neighbor. He would be much stronger if he played more like Kamehameha, making DOFs with everyone, leave the warmongering to the Danes.
 
I don't like how indonesia and netherlands don't know about their unique abilities
 
I don't like how indonesia and netherlands don't know about their unique abilities

Well to be honest the AI doesn't really need the happiness bonus from their UA, anyways. Netherlands at least builds polders.
 
Yeah Shaka stop always being that last place undiscovered civilization who eventually gets dowd by everyone on your continent and eliminated
 
Top Bottom