Civilization/Nation/Leaders - threat

[GPR]

This game has 3 characteristics for leaders (nations):

aggression (friendly, normal, aggressive)
development (perfectionist, normal, expansionistic) - expand city/extend terytory.
militarism (civilized, normal, militaristic) - science/military

According to:

Civilization Intelligence Agency (CIA) - CivFanatics

Sid Meier's Civilization: Reference Civilization Intelligence Agency (CIA) Top Secret Reports Click a link to see individual civilization report... Americans Aztecs Babylonians Chinese Egyptians English French Germans Greeks Indians Mongols Romans Russians Zulus Or view all the reports on one...

www.civfanatics.com

Leaders (Civ1)

civilization.fandom.com

But ....
How its really? (in your opinion according to your experiences)
Which is militarily dangerous, which most terytory expansive, and which expand cities the most, and which is a threat in the space race (science)?
For obvious reasons, this question is for people who have completed the game at least several times.

I know that every game is different but...
Which nations developed the most, had the biggest army or developed the fastest in science?
Which ones gave you the hardest time?

 

[Tancretus]

If I have a game with Aztec, Zulus, Russians and Mongols I know I'll be having a hard time.

Babylonians & Egyptians really do go for that "culture" work. If left to own devices too long Indians become Mongols.

Side note- I've only ever had the Chinese live passed 1 AD in any game. They just, I dunno. But they cremated me when we finally met. (I was the Mongols, stuck fighting English, Egyptians, Romans. Got off that landmass and took on the French, met the Chinese with Submarines when I only had Ironclad, and that was downhill from here. B*stards had their own landmass all game.)

 

[GPR]

The subject is difficult and depends on the location on the map and the closest opponents.
The Mongols will be quite a threat if they get good weapons (whether by invention or conquering the city).
Egiptians like peace and development.
The Russians are probably the most dangerous.
The English have always been weak to me.

 

[Mize]

It really mostly depends on circumstances. Aggressive civs will grow very quickly if they have lots of land and soft neighbours to prey upon, while builder civs will do well when left alone to develop. On the other hand, aggressive civs tend to stagnate if they have no space and no neighbours to take over and shake down for cash and tech, while builder civs are almost always doomed if they share a larger landmass with, say, the Mongols or the Russians.

 

[Theov]

The "threat" level is a number from 0 to 6

It's based on the categories; Aggression, Development and Militarism.
Aggression: Friendly -> normal -> Aggressive
Development: Perfectionist -> normal -> Expansionistic
Militarism: Civilized -> normal -> Militaristic

Babylonians: 0 (they are friendly, perfectionist and Civilized)
America / Aztecs / Indians: 1
Chinese / Germans / Egyptians: 2
Romans: 3
English / French / Zulus: 4
Russians / Greeks: 5
Mongols: 6 (they are Aggressive, Expansionistic and Militaristic - and probably angry and crazy, too)

Then the score is calculated giving 0 for friendly/perfect/civ, 1 for normal, 2 points Aggr / Exp / Mil

After establishing an Embassy, you can see the traits in the diplomacy screen.
The traits can be scrambled mid-game by pressing ALT-R.

In games this is noticable by how easily they will attack you, declare war or demand stuff. How they develop their cities and civilization and develop their land and by how many cities they will try to build.

 

[pureciv]

Let me paraphase this:

America / Aztecs / Indians: 1 =Nerds
Chinese / Germans / Egyptians: 2 =pussies
Romans: 3 =dangerous
English / French / Zulus: 4 =dicks/napoleon/blubberlips
Russians / Greeks: 5 =playthemsoudonthavetodealwiththem/mega-aggro
Mongols: 6 (they are Aggressive, Expansionistic and Militaristic - and probably angry and crazy, too) =mental

 

[Theov]

Let me paraphase this:

America / Aztecs / Indians: 1 =Nerds
Chinese / Germans / Egyptians: 2 =pussies
Romans: 3 =dangerous
English / French / Zulus: 4 =dicks/napoleon/blubberlips
Russians / Greeks: 5 =playthemsoudonthavetodealwiththem/mega-aggro
Mongols: 6 (they are Aggressive, Expansionistic and Militaristic - and probably angry and crazy, too) =mental

You forgot the zero-point Babylonians.

 

[GPR]

Fun fact: In my language "baby" is slightly offensive plural term / synonym for "women's".

I'm making a CIV scenario and I can't decide if in isolation they will develop more and be harder to defeat:
Zulus/Babylonian

Babylonians tended to be more advanced in cities and science, Zulus is always backward. Even when they had a large area, they did not establish many cities to catch up. In melee their aggression is also debatable. As a neighbor, I am always stronger than them militarily or developmentally so Zulus want peace with me. Maybe this nation is agressive, but only against weak nation like Indian or Chinese.
They seem to be the easier opponent in every way than Babylonian. Babylonian at least develop more big cities and invent more science so have faster armor unit.

 

[GPR]

I've worked up a bit.
Almost the same map and, as far as possible, the same conditions for development. Time to 1AD.
I was working on save (I can't force JCIVED to play Indian instead of the Mongols).
Interestingly, the Mongols were the only ones who offered me peace (unlike the Russians, Greeks, Zulus, Aztecs).
I gives a save if someone wants to make a bigger control test.