Gengis Khan.

[AdMech]

Yeah, Zara is in my current game and he is proving incredibly annoying. I'm not so sure he'll do well later in the game, because he has settled half the map - and that includes half of the worthless tundra spots! I have no idea how a city with maybe two non-tundra tiles is going to be anything but a drain on him.

This also means that my territory is split apart and half-surrounded by some of his worthless cities, though... makes me nervous...

 

[s.bernbaum]

Yeah, Zara is in my current game and he is proving incredibly annoying. I'm not so sure he'll do well later in the game, because he has settled half the map - and that includes half of the worthless tundra spots! I have no idea how a city with maybe two non-tundra tiles is going to be anything but a drain on him.

This also means that my territory is split apart and half-surrounded by some of his worthless cities, though... makes me nervous...

In my current game, playing as Zara, I also have two of those tundra cities. One has access to silver, uranium, and deer. The other has access to whale. Neither one will amount to much but they are both close to the capital and therefore have relatively low maintenance costs. Both are are coastal so they act like fishing villages. Neither one is great but they produce more than enough commerce to pay for their maintenance, so they are both small but net contributors to the empire. Those tundra cities can work out if they have a resource to justify them.

 

[AdMech]

In my current game, playing as Zara, I also have two of those tundra cities. One has access to silver, uranium, and deer. The other has access to whale. Neither one will amount to much but they are both close to the capital and therefore have relatively low maintenance costs. Both are are coastal so they act like fishing villages. Neither one is great but they produce more than enough commerce to pay for their maintenance, so they are both small but net contributors to the empire. Those tundra cities can work out if they have a resource to justify them.

That's true. I've been thinking about taking screenshots of potential city sites and asking members here to evaluate them, since I often have difficulty deciding. Two of the three cities I can see have no resources but a single Fur, though!

 

[s.bernbaum]

That's true. I've been thinking about taking screenshots of potential city sites and asking members here to evaluate them, since I often have difficulty deciding. Two of the three cities I can see have no resources but a single Fur, though!

The tundra cities are usually later choices for me, since they don't help the empire grow. They end up as filler cities, if they have something worthwhile. The single fur will have 1 food, so the city will grow although quite slowly. There are of course exceptions. I founded the city with the silver fairly early, since the added commerce from the silver mine was worthwhile AND the location put a stop to Sitting Bull's progressive line of tundra sea coast cities that he was edging past my empire on the north.

 

[enKage]

If only about aggresive leaders, so ok, Genghis and Shaka are most annoying.

But there is one leader I hate more: Sitting Bull - not because he is aggresive, but because of his CG3 longbows deffensive spam

 

[Jarlaxe Baenre]

You don't hate him for his poisonous tendencies?

 

[Peregrine]

For what it's worth--leaders;

Monty; Always annoyed, therefore dangerous. Generally, the way I deal with him is to rush him if he's too close, or bribe him into war or other AIs into war w/him. I did have him peace vassal to me on one occasion, and he proved ineffectual. Won the game, but Monty was very little help.

Alex & Nappy; Situationally dangerous. Given a good starting position, and successful early wars, either one can be potent later on. Usually, this isn't the case. They are too aggressive early on, and pay for it.

Ragnar; Seems like if he senses weakness, no matter if you are on the other side of the continent, he will declare and send an army your way. If you manage to stay on good terms with him, not an easy thing to do, he might not DoW. I once played a game in which Ragnar was north of me on a large continent, I conquered three other AI empires, and did not get attacked. The only thing I could figure out is that, by coincidence, Ragnar was also at war with the AIs that I was conquering and by the time I was done, was too powerful for him to attack.

I have seen Saladin, Mehmed, and Mansa REX very successfully, but have also had each of these peace vassal to me out of the blue, usually when they were under attack.

Shaka; as pointed out, he seems to have the ability to tech well, expand well, and is super aggressive. Like dealing w/Monty, if he's nearby, rush him if you can. That said, I played a game in which Shaka peace vassaled to me . . . and he was the most ferocious and effective vassal I've EVER had. As a fighting vassal, he MORE than held up his end, fighting on four fronts simultaneously . . . and he won. I was prepared to send armies to assist his defense--had them held in reserve, but never needed to commit them.

These seem to be the problem children.

 

[Racsoviale]

I agree on your list completely Peregrine, but you forgot to mention our lovable backstabbing russian lass. Catherine is one of the AIs I always keep an eye out for, since she seems to be able to declare war at the right times(meaning that time where you are counting on the AIs predictability to not declare). She doesnt play by the rules and can be a huge pain to neutralize.

 

[Gamer999]

..Also one thing that I have experienced for aggressive leaders is that quite surprisingly Saladin seems be pretty warmonger in about all my games. I have had many problems with Saladin building units like no tomorrow.

 

[6K Man]

I have to agree with those who say Shaka is the worst. He just keeps coming at you with masses of modern troops... no idea how he does it.

I didn't see Boudica mentioned above... of note, she launched the largest invasion fleet at me I've ever seen. We weren't separated by much water and her stack had 11+ Frigates and 9 loaded Galleons. Lost 4 cities before I could marshal some reinforcements.

 

[Ataxerxes]

If only about aggresive leaders, so ok, Genghis and Shaka are most annoying.

But there is one leader I hate more: Sitting Bull - not because he is aggresive, but because of his CG3 longbows deffensive spam

Shaka is the most dangerous. Admittedly, like you, I hate Sitting Bull the most. Partly because of his tremendous defenses but also poisoning your water every 5 turns. He doesn't beat you, you just want to kill him for the satisfaction.

If you're not paying attention, Catherine can be dangerous. Like a human, she doesn't play by the rules. She's as bad a backstabber as, well, we are. She also rexes heavy. Definitely one of the more dangerous AIs.

Monty is seldom dangerous after the early game. He'll have a ton of outdated units to give you loads of combat experience with little risk. Of course, if he's next to you he'll preoccupy your early game.

 

[enKage]

I have to agree with those who say Shaka is the worst. He just keeps coming at you with masses of modern troops... no idea how he does it.

I didn't see Boudica mentioned above... of note, she launched the largest invasion fleet at me I've ever seen. We weren't separated by much water and her stack had 11+ Frigates and 9 loaded Galleons. Lost 4 cities before I could marshal some reinforcements.

Ohyes, I forgot about Boudica - and i have this "luck" to play against her all my recent games. Even if she's very friendly, she has so many units she has to use it somehow so she always declares war at me, no matter how well diplomacy is going.

The hugest stack I have ever seen was Boudica's (on normal speed and standars size 20+muskets, 30+grenadiers, 10+curaissiers !!! and some catapults)