I have, so far, played 5 or 6 games that lasted long enough to get a good impression of how the world developed. This is not a very representative set of games, but I get the impression that some leader behaviors seem to be common across different games. These are all on Large Continent maps on Prince difficulty, with me not being a very warlike player, so the AI can pretty much do its thing (unless they try to get me of course -I'm competent, just not aggressive ). - Oda Nobunaga wants his own continent, at the very least. Very aggressive and seemingly quite succesful, though he usually struggles economically as the game progresses. - Same for Askia (Songhai). He always seems to end up with a big empire. - Rammesses, while at first glance not overly aggressive, always seems to end up eating one or two civs and creating a massive empire, with a very decent economy to support it. Barring Human interference, he is by far the most consistently succesful AI I've had in my games. - Bismarck seems to be absurd. He seems preposterously aggressive, even more so than Oda, yet seems to make too many enemies much too soon, which usually leads to a quick crippling of the German nation, or even outright defeat. There are other nations that seem to have some consistent success. France always seems to carve out a decent-sized empire, but nothing extreme. Rome usually survives well, but its success in empire-building is mixed - curiously enough they appear to be aggressive and insulting, but not actually warlike. The Ottomans and the Arabs seem to do very poorly in most games. Other civs either gave mixed impressions, or I didn't see enough of them to make any kind of judgment. Anyone else notice any emergent characteristics and consistency in the behavior of AI Leaders?