Civs that the A.I plays good and .. not so good.
- Thread starter orasis
- Start date
orasis
Prince
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2006
- Messages
- 441
isau
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2007
- Messages
- 3,071
Worst:
- Denmark
- Ghengis Khan, but only in the specific case of city states. He will declare war on them and eat a diplo penalty from the entire world, get denounced by everyone, and end up steamrolled by a pan-national invasion
- Byzantium. Hey Theodora, did you know your UA requires you to found a religion?
- Isabella, although I am not sure if this is actually bad AI or just the fact that she's Role Played in a specific way. Despite her quibbles I enjoy seeing her in game because she adds fun, unlike those stoic, kind of boring civs like Babylon and China.
- Elizabeth, same as above. Always smarting off and causing unnecessary drama that ends up getting her hobbled.
- The Netherlands don't know about their UA
- The Assyrians don't know their (otherwise amazing) UU can't attack units. They should be a major threat early on.
Best
- Hiawatha
- Poland, but in fairness this is partly because Poland's UA doesn't give them many opportunities to lose
- Portugal. Maria is a sneaky witch. Do not trust her for a second on water maps, she can surprise you with a massive naval invasion. She correctly (or so it seemed) read that my otherwise massive navy was across the world fighting another opponent and mugged my coastal capital right out from under me with a huge invasion.
- Dido, but only situationally. She's sometimes a little too aggressive early. But sister has also wiped me off the map more than once. Her only fault is a tendency to backstab allies slightly too easily. Without that she'd IMO be the scariest of the warmonger AIs because once she sets her sights on invading you, she's very hard to deter.
- Denmark
- Ghengis Khan, but only in the specific case of city states. He will declare war on them and eat a diplo penalty from the entire world, get denounced by everyone, and end up steamrolled by a pan-national invasion
- Byzantium. Hey Theodora, did you know your UA requires you to found a religion?
- Isabella, although I am not sure if this is actually bad AI or just the fact that she's Role Played in a specific way. Despite her quibbles I enjoy seeing her in game because she adds fun, unlike those stoic, kind of boring civs like Babylon and China.
- Elizabeth, same as above. Always smarting off and causing unnecessary drama that ends up getting her hobbled.
- The Netherlands don't know about their UA
- The Assyrians don't know their (otherwise amazing) UU can't attack units. They should be a major threat early on.
Best
- Hiawatha
- Poland, but in fairness this is partly because Poland's UA doesn't give them many opportunities to lose
- Portugal. Maria is a sneaky witch. Do not trust her for a second on water maps, she can surprise you with a massive naval invasion. She correctly (or so it seemed) read that my otherwise massive navy was across the world fighting another opponent and mugged my coastal capital right out from under me with a huge invasion.
- Dido, but only situationally. She's sometimes a little too aggressive early. But sister has also wiped me off the map more than once. Her only fault is a tendency to backstab allies slightly too easily. Without that she'd IMO be the scariest of the warmonger AIs because once she sets her sights on invading you, she's very hard to deter.
Talcove
Slayer of Spies
As many predicted, an AI controlled Venice is abyssal. They don't even seem to use their full trading capabilities or merchants of Venice! I once saw a merchant of Venice walk right through a city state that ate another city state, both of which were in great spots with great resources,a nd it did NOTHING!
Also, Alex always gets owned when he's in my games.
Denmark, also, doesn't seem to know how to expand... Or fight.
Also, Alex always gets owned when he's in my games.
Denmark, also, doesn't seem to know how to expand... Or fight.
Good:
Poland, India, Russia (Barring getting completely wiped out early, these always have decent games)
Annoyingly good: (means they aren't necessarily runaways, but are annoying to no end)
Shoshone (getting forward settled on means you lost your 3rd ring resources), Polynesia (not so much a naval civ as a city spam civ, they will swim across the world to settle three cities near you and fill the map with moais), Greece and Siam (CS monger)
Dangerously good: Zulu (unless they hit a snag they usually will take out a few civs early), Korea (two eras ahead of everyone)
Bad: Denmark
Pathetically bad: Venice (one war bribe invariably finishes them off)
Poland, India, Russia (Barring getting completely wiped out early, these always have decent games)
Annoyingly good: (means they aren't necessarily runaways, but are annoying to no end)
Shoshone (getting forward settled on means you lost your 3rd ring resources), Polynesia (not so much a naval civ as a city spam civ, they will swim across the world to settle three cities near you and fill the map with moais), Greece and Siam (CS monger)
Dangerously good: Zulu (unless they hit a snag they usually will take out a few civs early), Korea (two eras ahead of everyone)
Bad: Denmark
Pathetically bad: Venice (one war bribe invariably finishes them off)
Polisurgist
King
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2011
- Messages
- 630
No, the AI's ability to handle some leaders better than others has more to do with whether the leader's UA and UUs play well with the areas where the AI is stronger. Englad sucks not because England has a terrible AI, but because all of the AIs are bad at naval combat and England relies heavily on their navy. The AI does well with Hiawatha because the Iroquois' abilities enhance the stuff the AI was going to do anyway: run around in the woods and build up massive production.
Enrico Swagolo
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2013
- Messages
- 2,387
The best one:
Casimir. Unlike others great AI's, he either becomes the biggest runaway, or he feeds someone else into becoming the biggest runaway. Middle ground? Well, he reaches it, but very rarely.
Great ones:
Hiawatha - who doesn't know this guy.
Augustus - competent.
Shaka -not the brightest guy. Sometimes he fails quite hard. I'm not sure if he deserves being called "great", because he's only greatish.
Alexander - always a danger. Always hatin'.
Genghis (unless he gets hated too much for his CS aggression while having several enemy civs nearby, in which case he'll soon be conquered by 3-4 angry AI's piling on him)
Used-to-be
Haile Selassie (pre-patch which lowered his expansiveness)
Catherine (pre-BNW, she's very unlucky in BNW and constantly fails)
Worst:
Isabella - see those two natural wonders near your capital? 10 tiles away, just send your settler - oh why the hell are you settling so far away from them in that pointless location? Those wonders..
She doesn't know what her UA is. She doesn't even know how to really play. Never expands much, always fails, is always irrational. Even if she finds wonders first, she can't utilise her gold. She's just horrible. And irrational.
Bad ones:
Askia - just a punching bag constantly making very, very bad decisions. Like settling 40 tiles away from the capital near me. Kinda like the guy though.
Elizabeth - she's annoying and never does anything even remotely useful. She's never been even a half runaway.
Nebuchadnezzar - SETTLE A GODDAMN ACADEMY. Don't bulb that GS. DON'T...
What's wrong with this guy? Everything.
Casimir. Unlike others great AI's, he either becomes the biggest runaway, or he feeds someone else into becoming the biggest runaway. Middle ground? Well, he reaches it, but very rarely.
Great ones:
Hiawatha - who doesn't know this guy.
Augustus - competent.
Shaka -not the brightest guy. Sometimes he fails quite hard. I'm not sure if he deserves being called "great", because he's only greatish.
Alexander - always a danger. Always hatin'.
Genghis (unless he gets hated too much for his CS aggression while having several enemy civs nearby, in which case he'll soon be conquered by 3-4 angry AI's piling on him)
Used-to-be
Haile Selassie (pre-patch which lowered his expansiveness)
Catherine (pre-BNW, she's very unlucky in BNW and constantly fails)
Worst:
Isabella - see those two natural wonders near your capital? 10 tiles away, just send your settler - oh why the hell are you settling so far away from them in that pointless location? Those wonders..
She doesn't know what her UA is. She doesn't even know how to really play. Never expands much, always fails, is always irrational. Even if she finds wonders first, she can't utilise her gold. She's just horrible. And irrational.
Bad ones:
Askia - just a punching bag constantly making very, very bad decisions. Like settling 40 tiles away from the capital near me. Kinda like the guy though.
Elizabeth - she's annoying and never does anything even remotely useful. She's never been even a half runaway.
Nebuchadnezzar - SETTLE A GODDAMN ACADEMY. Don't bulb that GS. DON'T...
What's wrong with this guy? Everything.
BUDISMYBUDDY
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2013
- Messages
- 77
If i start a game and see Attila, Alex, or Hiawatha i immediately start to plan to take them out cause if you don't they will be a serious problem later on. Also Enrico and Maria cause they are just anoyying with them taking City States. And Monty, just never trust him.
Most annoying to have show up at your capitol on turn 5: Zulu and Assyria.
More of a threat in the long run: Rome, Greece, Iroquois, Shoshone, sometimes Morocco.
Seldom a problem: Babylon (should be fantastic but never is), Brazil (but Pedro's a nice guy), Venice. Also, Harald Bluetooth...he's seldom around for even half the game in my games.
More of a threat in the long run: Rome, Greece, Iroquois, Shoshone, sometimes Morocco.
Seldom a problem: Babylon (should be fantastic but never is), Brazil (but Pedro's a nice guy), Venice. Also, Harald Bluetooth...he's seldom around for even half the game in my games.
Jon the Bastard
Warlord
Best:
Russia - Whenever I see the Ai as Russia in a game, I know it's going to be a tough one. Always a conisderation.
Siam - Not sure why, but the AI always does well in my games when playing as Siam. Huge cities, solid military, culture and tourism output is usually strong too.
Rome - A complete and total terror well into the Medievil Era. Always a strong AI player in my games.
Korea - Press "enter" to win.
Iroquois - I echo what everyone else has said about Hiawatha. The guy consistently kicks ass.
Japan - It hurts the precious. The AI isn't particularly good at the strategic aspects of warfare in the game, but Japan always overwhelms with sheer numbers.
Egypt - Isolationist, and yet somehow the AI makes it work. I'll never understand.
Worst:
China - I will never be able to figure out why the AI struggles so much with China. They only ever settled 2 cities, 3 at the most, and then they end up getting conquered by a neighbor at some point.
Babylon - The AI does alright with Babylon, but never really seems to take full advantage of Babylons strength in science to ever get ahead in anything. They are always just kind of... there. When the AI plays Babylon, they are played like a mid-tier civ.
Denmark - The AI is just flat-out too stupid when it comes to the strategy of warfare to take advantage of Denmark's strength in that area. Denmark is an okay civ that the AI makes look like a terrible civ.
England - England gets a bad reputation, and I'm not sure why. Probably because of how poorly the AI plays them. England is a really solid civ, but the AI doesn't have the ability to take advantage of the UA and UU.
The Netherlands - In order for The Netherlands to be good, you have to take a number of things into consideration that just isn't a part of what the AI thinks about... well, at least, stuff that it doesn't think about very well. City placement is important, citizen management is important, and gaming resource trading is important. Non of which the AI is particularly good at.
Russia - Whenever I see the Ai as Russia in a game, I know it's going to be a tough one. Always a conisderation.
Siam - Not sure why, but the AI always does well in my games when playing as Siam. Huge cities, solid military, culture and tourism output is usually strong too.
Rome - A complete and total terror well into the Medievil Era. Always a strong AI player in my games.
Korea - Press "enter" to win.
Iroquois - I echo what everyone else has said about Hiawatha. The guy consistently kicks ass.
Japan - It hurts the precious. The AI isn't particularly good at the strategic aspects of warfare in the game, but Japan always overwhelms with sheer numbers.
Egypt - Isolationist, and yet somehow the AI makes it work. I'll never understand.
Worst:
China - I will never be able to figure out why the AI struggles so much with China. They only ever settled 2 cities, 3 at the most, and then they end up getting conquered by a neighbor at some point.
Babylon - The AI does alright with Babylon, but never really seems to take full advantage of Babylons strength in science to ever get ahead in anything. They are always just kind of... there. When the AI plays Babylon, they are played like a mid-tier civ.
Denmark - The AI is just flat-out too stupid when it comes to the strategy of warfare to take advantage of Denmark's strength in that area. Denmark is an okay civ that the AI makes look like a terrible civ.
England - England gets a bad reputation, and I'm not sure why. Probably because of how poorly the AI plays them. England is a really solid civ, but the AI doesn't have the ability to take advantage of the UA and UU.
The Netherlands - In order for The Netherlands to be good, you have to take a number of things into consideration that just isn't a part of what the AI thinks about... well, at least, stuff that it doesn't think about very well. City placement is important, citizen management is important, and gaming resource trading is important. Non of which the AI is particularly good at.
roflmaoqwerty
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2013
- Messages
- 5
Poland and Iroquois are the big runaways, of course. If Austria gets a strong economy rolling, they can be a pain in the rear since they're super trigger-happy with their UA.
It sometimes seems like the AI doesn't know how to make the most of Babylon's scientific power; nine times out of ten, they'll bulb the GS they get from Writing, and they usually won't even beeline for Writing and, thus, the Great Library. Strange, since the Korea AI plays a great science game and really does make the most of their UA, spamming science buildings and even wonders.
It sometimes seems like the AI doesn't know how to make the most of Babylon's scientific power; nine times out of ten, they'll bulb the GS they get from Writing, and they usually won't even beeline for Writing and, thus, the Great Library. Strange, since the Korea AI plays a great science game and really does make the most of their UA, spamming science buildings and even wonders.
xynkurosawa
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2013
- Messages
- 4
Germans always do good, probably because of the right AI settings, I always include them. Brazil is good too. Early warmongers such as Genghis Khan etc. almost always end up being DoW'd by everyone, so I tend to not include any warmongers in my games becouse they almost always suck = no challenge, Japan and Denmark suck the most. The easiest way to get a conquest victory or any other type of victory is to include only warmonger AIs IMO.
ixias
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2012
- Messages
- 207
I've always wanted to make a list of AI Civs from best to worst. I'm going to say Greece and the Iroquois would be at the top, whereas England and Denmark would be at the bottom.
Alex and Hiawatha are givens for the top spots. They're strong in many aspects and, while Alex is kind of a whiner, he properly backs it up with his military and CS friends. Hiawatha's expansion lets him do pretty much whatever he wants.
Elizabeth isn't actually bad at empire building; where she struggles is playing nicely. Generally about halfway through the game, everyone wants her dead. Denmark... well. I usually forget he's in my games until I see the notice that he's lost his capital. He struggles on every map type in nearly every aspect. He consistently has a sad, pathetic empire comprised of a few small cities, terrible Science, Culture, and Gold, and a rather mediocre military. I honestly have no idea what he does.
Alex and Hiawatha are givens for the top spots. They're strong in many aspects and, while Alex is kind of a whiner, he properly backs it up with his military and CS friends. Hiawatha's expansion lets him do pretty much whatever he wants.
Elizabeth isn't actually bad at empire building; where she struggles is playing nicely. Generally about halfway through the game, everyone wants her dead. Denmark... well. I usually forget he's in my games until I see the notice that he's lost his capital. He struggles on every map type in nearly every aspect. He consistently has a sad, pathetic empire comprised of a few small cities, terrible Science, Culture, and Gold, and a rather mediocre military. I honestly have no idea what he does.
For me the worst are probably Denmark, Assyria, Songhai, Carthage and Mongolia. The first four seem to suffer from the "be aggressive but stay on 3 cities" syndrome, they wage a few unsuccessful wars in the early game and are left with a pitifully small empire with no culture or science to speak of. Genghis is a bit different since he does expand, but his aggression against city-states always makes him the villain everyone gangs up on.
In G&K I would have included Netherlands, Sweden and Byzantium as among the worst but with the more peaceful play in BNW they seem to be the score leaders quite often with just how many wonders they build. William especially can be very obnoxious when he builds every cultural wonder on the other continent away from you.
The best ones are a combination of ruthless aggression and expansion: Greece, Rome, Iroquois, Poland, France, Germany, Russia. Unless they start in the middle of the continent and manage to piss off every neighbor with their warmongering and expanding, they are a guaranteed runaway.
In G&K I would have included Netherlands, Sweden and Byzantium as among the worst but with the more peaceful play in BNW they seem to be the score leaders quite often with just how many wonders they build. William especially can be very obnoxious when he builds every cultural wonder on the other continent away from you.
The best ones are a combination of ruthless aggression and expansion: Greece, Rome, Iroquois, Poland, France, Germany, Russia. Unless they start in the middle of the continent and manage to piss off every neighbor with their warmongering and expanding, they are a guaranteed runaway.
Navelgazer
King
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2012
- Messages
- 876
Whenever I run into Babylon, they always seem to be the last AI civ have an embassy to accept, meaning they are the last to research Writing, meaning that they are doing the opposite of what they should be for their UA. I assume that in this time they are instead researching up through Archery and Masonry, which makes sense for them, except that Writing should be their top priority.
I find most civs are hit-or-miss, but here's my list of standouts in one direction or another.
First up in the "Oh no, not you again" category:
SHAKA of the ZULUS
HIAWATHA of the IROQUOIS
SEJONG of KOREA
ALEXANDER of GREECE
We know why Shaka's there. The Zulus are dangerous in anyone's hands; throw an AI's bonus happiness and gold in and they're a menace. Program that AI to expand like crazy and kill everything in the way, and now they're a very dangerous nuisance the AI can do quite well.
Hiawatha's a different flavor of pain in the ass. Use that happiness to fund countless little craphole towns all over your territory, and make him quite testy about you being on his sacred native land and now he's an annoyance. He's also seemingly got a taste for science.
Sejong... we all know what he's capable of. If he's on another continent unmolested, start planning your late-game assault now. Right after you find him he's probably got a fleet of Hwa'cha and Turtle Ships, so you'll have to push after he's strongest and hope he didn't run away too far.
Alex we know all too well. I'd put Siam here too for similar reasons, but Alex is better at gobbling up city states, while Siam just enjoys the benefits more. Alex is a little more willing to try to kill you too, despite Rammy loving Stampy the Elephant spam.
Moving on to the "Total non-factor" category:
ASKIA of SONGHAI
PEDRO of BRAZIL
ENRICO DANDOLO of VENICE
?????? of MOROCCO (I can't even be bothered to remember his name)
Askia I really don't understand. I just finished a game as him and I have to say that the Mud Pyramid Mosque is quite nice and the extra gold early-game is quite useful. My running theory is a combination of mixed-bag priorities for the AI, and that the AI is quite used to pissing away extra gold, so triple from encampments can be wasted easily. I've seen this guy fail in so many ways; from doing nothing but building Warriors on one city, to just sitting by idly waiting to die.
Pedro. Poor Pedro. My running theory on why Pedro dies is that he's quite passive, has a jungle start without a human's knowledge on how to work one of those, and his uniques only matter very late in the game if ever. Extra tourism in a golden age means you need to get a lot of them, and Pracinhas are the single latest UU in the game, with marginal utility even then. The Brazilwood camp is nice but won't save him.
Enrico's failures are due to the fact that Venice is so strange and unique that it'd require a second set of AI to play him, I think. I know the AI doesn't understand this guy because he gets upset when I settle nearby. Dude, you were never putting a city there and I know it, now let me trade you the gold you'd never be able to work.
Morocco: one of the worst UA in the game that desperately needs some scaling. Kasbahs really need good desert to work well in. Berber Cavalry are neat, but only good on the home game, and this AI is too passive to work it.
Finally onto the "dice-rollers" category for either very good or very bad results:
GHENGIS KHAN of the MONGOLS
ISABELLA of SPAIN
CATHERINE of RUSSIA
WU ZUTEIN of CHINA
Ghengis depends entirely on how his city-state devouring pays off, and how his time period with Keshiks goes. Either he's a really big powerhouse, or he's had the crap kicked out of him for messing with city-states. More the latter in my experience, but I've had some close calls.
Isabella depends on how many if any free settlers she gets, and then how well they get placed.
Catherine I've seen do really well with expansionism, but every once in a while she steps on a toe too many and gets her butt kicked.
Wu I've seen play the passive science game one too many times. She's no Korea or Babylon. Sometimes it works (she's running away in my current game as Germany), but sometimes it doesn't.
First up in the "Oh no, not you again" category:
SHAKA of the ZULUS
HIAWATHA of the IROQUOIS
SEJONG of KOREA
ALEXANDER of GREECE
We know why Shaka's there. The Zulus are dangerous in anyone's hands; throw an AI's bonus happiness and gold in and they're a menace. Program that AI to expand like crazy and kill everything in the way, and now they're a very dangerous nuisance the AI can do quite well.
Hiawatha's a different flavor of pain in the ass. Use that happiness to fund countless little craphole towns all over your territory, and make him quite testy about you being on his sacred native land and now he's an annoyance. He's also seemingly got a taste for science.
Sejong... we all know what he's capable of. If he's on another continent unmolested, start planning your late-game assault now. Right after you find him he's probably got a fleet of Hwa'cha and Turtle Ships, so you'll have to push after he's strongest and hope he didn't run away too far.
Alex we know all too well. I'd put Siam here too for similar reasons, but Alex is better at gobbling up city states, while Siam just enjoys the benefits more. Alex is a little more willing to try to kill you too, despite Rammy loving Stampy the Elephant spam.
Moving on to the "Total non-factor" category:
ASKIA of SONGHAI
PEDRO of BRAZIL
ENRICO DANDOLO of VENICE
?????? of MOROCCO (I can't even be bothered to remember his name)
Askia I really don't understand. I just finished a game as him and I have to say that the Mud Pyramid Mosque is quite nice and the extra gold early-game is quite useful. My running theory is a combination of mixed-bag priorities for the AI, and that the AI is quite used to pissing away extra gold, so triple from encampments can be wasted easily. I've seen this guy fail in so many ways; from doing nothing but building Warriors on one city, to just sitting by idly waiting to die.
Pedro. Poor Pedro. My running theory on why Pedro dies is that he's quite passive, has a jungle start without a human's knowledge on how to work one of those, and his uniques only matter very late in the game if ever. Extra tourism in a golden age means you need to get a lot of them, and Pracinhas are the single latest UU in the game, with marginal utility even then. The Brazilwood camp is nice but won't save him.
Enrico's failures are due to the fact that Venice is so strange and unique that it'd require a second set of AI to play him, I think. I know the AI doesn't understand this guy because he gets upset when I settle nearby. Dude, you were never putting a city there and I know it, now let me trade you the gold you'd never be able to work.
Morocco: one of the worst UA in the game that desperately needs some scaling. Kasbahs really need good desert to work well in. Berber Cavalry are neat, but only good on the home game, and this AI is too passive to work it.
Finally onto the "dice-rollers" category for either very good or very bad results:
GHENGIS KHAN of the MONGOLS
ISABELLA of SPAIN
CATHERINE of RUSSIA
WU ZUTEIN of CHINA
Ghengis depends entirely on how his city-state devouring pays off, and how his time period with Keshiks goes. Either he's a really big powerhouse, or he's had the crap kicked out of him for messing with city-states. More the latter in my experience, but I've had some close calls.
Isabella depends on how many if any free settlers she gets, and then how well they get placed.
Catherine I've seen do really well with expansionism, but every once in a while she steps on a toe too many and gets her butt kicked.
Wu I've seen play the passive science game one too many times. She's no Korea or Babylon. Sometimes it works (she's running away in my current game as Germany), but sometimes it doesn't.
sendos
Immortal
I've had one game where AI England was the runaway the civ that ended up winning a combined science and culture victory. I wouldn't underestimate them.
Ordinary AI civs imo - Denmark, France, Venice, America, Aztecs, Brazil, Polynesia and China.
Ordinary AI civs imo - Denmark, France, Venice, America, Aztecs, Brazil, Polynesia and China.
Stellarnight
Warlord
My past 5 games have France. Is it only me or has France gained a massive bump in Expansionist flavor? In all 5 games, France expands ridiculously fast. It is as if Hiawatha possessed Napoleon.
I would say AI France is now kind of dangerous. It is always the expansionist AIs that are annoying.
I would say AI France is now kind of dangerous. It is always the expansionist AIs that are annoying.
Navelgazer
King
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2012
- Messages
- 876
This drives me crazy (and I'm a big fan of playing as Venice, as I'm doing currently.) I know Dandy is the most potentially difficult leader to program AI for, but he should be a FAN of people settling near him. It's the only way he can access the resources which are out of his reach, either through trade or just backstabbing (as he is wont to do) his neighbors and capturing the city once it is developed.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
