All Civs are equal! BUT, are some either more, or less equal?

[spincrus]

This has come to my attention during the past couple of games I've played, mainly in map sizes above normal (normal, large and huge).

What happened in all of them was the same:

- India under Asoka gets burned to the ground before them poor Indians can't even research a gunpowder tech.
- Mali under Mansa Musa is ALWAYS in the lead, with a huge, HUGE margin (I mean the last game he was 14 techs ahead of all the others, I couldn't take it anymore and checked what's going on in the World Builder mode. He was also taking the lead in the other 2 games he was in).
- Japan under Tokugawa is ALWAYS behind in technology and is usually very poor.
- France is usually still sitting at 3 cities when the neighbors have already made 8 to 9!

What is going on?

Apparently Japan's problem is the "Agressive" trait. It's keeping Japan from fully expanding into other territories and for some reason, the maintenance costs are incredibly high.

Asoka, I have no clue why this is happening. I'm really starting to assume it's the "fast worker" unit that's not really helping Asoka as a Unique Unit. He has been destroyed in ALL the games I've played up until now, with one exception, where he was reduced to 4 cities in a large map!

France, well I've seen them do better, but I've seen this in 2 games. They had enough room to expand to, but for some reason, didn't!

I am really wondering what's up with their AI...


NOW,

- I'm thinking France and Japan were just coincidence.
- I'm also thinking that the Mongols, under either ruler, would be under the same conditions as Japan.

BUT,

- India under Asoka being destroyed in all the games he has been in made me wonder. I didn't pay enough attention to Gandhi's India, but my theory lies with the "fast worker" UU. Are they militarily that weak just because of the lack of a military UU? I would doubt it, as fast improvements would mean being one step ahead of everyone else.
- Mansa Musa of Mali, I just have NO idea what's going on with this.


These are all results with the regular game, randomly generated maps, no modding (well, discluding the fact that I've raised tech building in the Epic gamespeed). I'd love to post save games but I have a habbit of deleting them, as it gets too crowded after a while in the saved games folder, you know.

For any modding I'd do, I'd create a separate folder and put them in there as a separate mod. If these problems occured because of the mod, then I'd know.

But this is a little out of hand, don't you think?

 

[Wodan]

Well, I haven't played against Asoka or Mansa yet (sheer random draws), but I've played against Tokugawa twice and Louis once.

Tokugawa did fine in one game but was tech and money poor as you describe in the other. Part of this, I think, was because early on he decided to attack me but I had anticipated it way in advance and I had horse archers before anybody else on the globe. So I pretty much wiped out all his excess units. I didn't bother conquering him as I was going for a cultural victory. But, I figure he had to rebuild his military en masse, and that has to set you back. He then got in a couple other wars with other nations, with similar results. After a while, I started feeding him tech, which suited me fine, and kept him (1) happy with me and (2) attacking other people because of his aggressive trait. Both good results in my book.

Anyway like I said he did fine in the first game.

Louis pretty much was ahead of me in the one game, the whole time. He had fewer cities, but we're talking 12 to my 18. He had better tech though. I probably overexpanded. No, I definitely overexpanded.

Wodan

 

[Sisonpyh]

It really depends on what kind of land the AI gets and what happens early on.

Funny thing is, Asoska has been top 3 in most of my games. Whereas Mansa is usually dead last or close to it.

Japan has done bad in some of my games as well, but I've seen them do pretty well in others. Personally, I think Qin and Elizabeth are the two most overpowered civs the AI plays. They usually rack in crazy amount of cash and upgrade units and pump out wonders like crazy.

 

[Psyringe]

Hmm. My games seem to contradict many of yours.

France: was second place in one game (under Louis) and won another game by a *huge* margin (under Napoleon, he eradicated Victoria, and after absorbing her cities he became absolutely unstoppable).

Japan: Haven't met them often. I think that their xenophobia is limiting more than their traits though. Tokugawa is an isolationist, he doesn't trade enough and hence falls back.

Asoka: Hmm, he *was* destroyed in the inly game where I met him, but by myself, so you can't count that. I've met Gandhi two times, and both times he had a rather strong position, although he didn't win. I doubt that their UU is a problem. If that were the case, then civilizations with very late game units (Germany, USA) should suffer similar problems.

Mansa Musa: He is very scientific, but neglects defense. In one game he had the scientific lead in the middle ages, but got then eradicated by Alexander.

As our findings often contradict each other, I guess we have to gather more data until we can come to conclusions.

 

[Dairuka]

- India and Mali are usually the Peaceful type civilizations who specialize in grabbing religions and growth technologies. Which help their growth. If they get into a war with another AI however, they've lost. Most of the time.

- Tokugawa is a strict Isolationist. He never trades technologies like the other AI's do. He also builds up a very large army early in the game, which tends to restrict his growth. However, I would not suggest an early medieval war against him. He'll outnumber you 9 times out of 10. He almost always takes Mercantilism, which restricts his trade routes, and because his empire is never very big, Mercantilism for him is a penalty. Hence why hes usually poor.

- France has a very balanced AI. If you ask me, he and Napolean are the most likely to win by a Space Race. I'd put Isabella, and Elizabeth in a distant second and third. Ghandi in fourth.

- Caeser and Alexander are the most dangerous players in the game. Their early UU, and aggressive nature make them difficult to befriend, and hard to get off your back. If you have either one as your neighbor, you better beef up your border defense, because they'll come charging in head first and take a couple cities before you can say, "OMFG WATAF!"

 

[Zertez]

It varies game to game and if they get lucky with a nice supply of resources. Some games a leader will be a beast and the next game, they will fall first. If Tokugawa gets a nice supply of iron, copper and/or horses, he will be tough; but when he gets a lot of luxury resources, he seems to fall behind. It is good the leaders are well-rounded and each can excel rather than have a handful that are head and shoulders above the rest.

 

[Gr3yL3gion]

Top Three AI
Gandhi, Roosevelt, Elizabeth

Worst Ai
Tokugawa, Montezuma, Huane Capac

 

[Japanrocks12]

I have a theory which may account for Tokugawa's backward nature and reticence. He always adopts Mercantilism and NEVER opens his borders. I don't know about his use of specialists but this may account for his economic backwardsness

 

[Bast]

I have a very different experience with Mansa Musa. I've played two big games and both games he was the first to find Buddhism. He always tries to convert me but to no luck.

First game, he was close to me, I destroyed him.

Second game, on a huge Earth map with 18 civs, he's lagging behind in everything. He's ranked about 12th I think.

Mansa Musa seems to be a religious peaceful leader to me. And lacking in defense.

He's a walkover.

 

[karadoc]

Gandhi has been a notable presence in a lot of the games I've played, but aside from that; no one else has caught my attention.
I'd say we need to look at more data before making conclusion. It is likely that some civs will do better than others on average, but I don't think it is an obvious effect.

 

[weasel77066]

Fine thread. Good reading. Compliments to Dairuka and psyringe for excellent observations.
Ive had serious problems with both Japan and Catherine. They really frustrate me at times trying to figure them out. I'll get-em one of these days.
One quick question. Are relations affected in any way by personality clashes between leaders? Say- Tokogawa dislikes particular types, and/or reacts more peacefully towards others?

 

[Japanrocks12]

Mansa is intrinsically evil. Never ever convert to a religion that he founds and try to veer other AI's from his religion too. Else you are only feeding his purse.

 

[MeteorPunch]

Mansa Musa is Financial, the most overpowered trait in the game. Overall one of the best leaders, definitely top 5.

Tokagawa doesn't hardly trade, and has crap traits, so he gets behind in tech.

 

[calyth]

- Caeser and Alexander are the most dangerous players in the game. Their early UU, and aggressive nature make them difficult to befriend, and hard to get off your back. If you have either one as your neighbor, you better beef up your border defense, because they'll come charging in head first and take a couple cities before you can say, "OMFG WATAF!"

Yeah I've got Caesar a couple of times, and often he'd declare war, and he's simply very hard to befriend unless you plan to give away resources and wait for a lot of turns.
I'd wipe off Caesar if I could. It seems as if I get him as a neighbour all the time.

 

[gakkun]

Caesar, Alexander and Napoleon are always weak and harmless in my games for some reason and strangely I have never seen them declare war.

It's the peaceful ones like Asoka Mansa and Huaya who're ALWAYS leading among the AI. I hate them because they are so difficult to convert to become my allies.

 

[angelickitty]

This has come to my attention during the past couple of games I've played, mainly in map sizes above normal (normal, large and huge).

What happened in all of them was the same:

- India under Asoka gets burned to the ground before them poor Indians can't even research a gunpowder tech.
- Mali under Mansa Musa is ALWAYS in the lead, with a huge, HUGE margin (I mean the last game he was 14 techs ahead of all the others, I couldn't take it anymore and checked what's going on in the World Builder mode. He was also taking the lead in the other 2 games he was in).
- Japan under Tokugawa is ALWAYS behind in technology and is usually very poor.
- France is usually still sitting at 3 cities when the neighbors have already made 8 to 9!

What is going on?

Apparently Japan's problem is the "Agressive" trait. It's keeping Japan from fully expanding into other territories and for some reason, the maintenance costs are incredibly high.

Asoka, I have no clue why this is happening. I'm really starting to assume it's the "fast worker" unit that's not really helping Asoka as a Unique Unit. He has been destroyed in ALL the games I've played up until now, with one exception, where he was reduced to 4 cities in a large map!

France, well I've seen them do better, but I've seen this in 2 games. They had enough room to expand to, but for some reason, didn't!

I am really wondering what's up with their AI...


NOW,

- I'm thinking France and Japan were just coincidence.
- I'm also thinking that the Mongols, under either ruler, would be under the same conditions as Japan.

BUT,

- India under Asoka being destroyed in all the games he has been in made me wonder. I didn't pay enough attention to Gandhi's India, but my theory lies with the "fast worker" UU. Are they militarily that weak just because of the lack of a military UU? I would doubt it, as fast improvements would mean being one step ahead of everyone else.
- Mansa Musa of Mali, I just have NO idea what's going on with this.


These are all results with the regular game, randomly generated maps, no modding (well, discluding the fact that I've raised tech building in the Epic gamespeed). I'd love to post save games but I have a habbit of deleting them, as it gets too crowded after a while in the saved games folder, you know.

For any modding I'd do, I'd create a separate folder and put them in there as a separate mod. If these problems occured because of the mod, then I'd know.

But this is a little out of hand, don't you think?

ive always seen ghandi being pretty strong... on the current map im playing the indians got taken out about turn 8-15 though with im not sure which leader.. not sure how to find out who the leader of a dead empire is and im on an island so its going to be a long long time before i get anywhere close to his territories.. islands are the worst place for me to start on

 

[spa]

In my experience:

Catherine, Mansu and Asoka almost always do well and Tokuwaga always fails. I have had him in three games and in every one he has tanked badly and ended up conquered.

 

[spincrus]

Catherine, too, does pretty well, yes. I forgot to mention her. Same with Elizabeth, actually.

Tokugawa always fails. ALWAYS fails. Asoka, with me, has been wiped out completely in ALL of my games (and I've been playing quite a bit).

 

[Sybot]

Tokugawa is a perfect AW leader, Mercantilism + large army = correct strategy for AW.

However this strategy is hideously counter-productive in normal games, making him the worst of the bunch.

 

[Wodan]

I have a theory which may account for Tokugawa's backward nature and reticence. He always adopts Mercantilism and NEVER opens his borders. I don't know about his use of specialists but this may account for his economic backwardsness

He opened his borders to me last game.

So, if not "never", perhaps only when you're really really nice to him.

Wodan