Guh?! Alexander & City States

[Vordeo]

Actually i believe Alexander went out and got all the "city states"together under 1 banner, and from there on out started conquering anything around him, backedup by these city-states.

Well, technically the Greek city states were on his side, but alot of that was down to his dad beating the crap out of their armies until they accepted them as their leaders. Upon Philip's death a bunch of them (Athens and Thebes at least) revolted against Macedonian supremacy and had to be suppressed by Alex.

Alex pretty much continued his dad's policy and subjugated the rest of them, put down revolts, etc., then went on to conquer the hell out of more stuff.

So yeah, if they are basing AI behavior on historical AI behavior, then it'd make sense. I don't agree with it, for the record, as he should be using his UA better, but there you go.

 

[ApocalypseMao]

Alex pretty much continued his dad's policy and subjugated the rest of them, put down revolts, etc., then went on to conquer the hell out of more stuff.

Yeah, Alex pretty much turned the other Greek City-States into puppets and then went conquering. He founded, what? 20 cities named after him? Sounds like a good civ player to me. If they wanted a leader who would utilize that UA, they should have picked someone like Pericles or something.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

The point, though, is that you have a Civilization whose leader has the specific Ability "Hellenic League"-yet you have an AI whose behaviour effectively *negates* that ability. However people want to spin this, that is *BAD* AI design-one which should have never been included. You could have still had Alexander the warmonger *without* nerfing the Special Ability-just have his attitudes towards major civs be biased towards conquest. Heck, imagine how dangerous a foe Alexander would be in the game if he had half a dozen militaristic City-States on his side?!?!

Aussie.

 

[Slowpoke]

Well, if we want to give them the benefit of the doubt, Askia, the leader following alex on the list, also has minor civ conquest at 8 bias. It is entirely possible that they simply did some bad copy pasting somewhere. Although it's pretty unlikely since all of the other values are low for alex, too.

 

[Vordeo]

The point, though, is that you have a Civilization whose leader has the specific Ability "Hellenic League"-yet you have an AI whose behaviour effectively *negates* that ability. However people want to spin this, that is *BAD* AI design-one which should have never been included. You could have still had Alexander the warmonger *without* nerfing the Special Ability-just have his attitudes towards major civs be biased towards conquest. Heck, imagine how dangerous a foe Alexander would be in the game if he had half a dozen militaristic City-States on his side?!?!

Aussie.

My point was that they probably based his attributes on the historical figure.

I've never agreed that this was a good thing.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

My point was that they probably based his attributes on the historical figure.

I've never agreed that this was a good thing.

My point is that they simply made a *mistake*-one which should have been picked up *BEFORE* release. No wonder the AI is so useless if even simple things like this slipped by them!

Aussie.

 

[Rudster816]

Well, if you have ever played against Alex, you know that he is probably the AI thats the most hellbent on domination. Funny thing is I hate playing against him because he always does well, because he just declares on everyone around him.

 

[Vordeo]

My point is that they simply made a *mistake*-one which should have been picked up *BEFORE* release. No wonder the AI is so useless if even simple things like this slipped by them!

Aussie.

We've got no idea if it's a design choice or an actual oversight though.

But you keep on thinking what you want.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

We've got no idea if it's a design choice or an actual oversight though.

But you keep on thinking what you want.

If it was a design choice, then they wouldn't have given Alexander a UA that could be so easily negated by said design choice-unless they *want* the AI Civs to be totally useless & non-challenging. But you keep defending Civ5 to the hilt if you want!

 

[Vordeo]

If it was a design choice, then they wouldn't have given Alexander a UA that could be so easily negated by said design choice-unless they *want* the AI Civs to be totally useless & non-challenging.

Unless they made the conscious choice to do so.

And frankly, calling the civ with the most OP unit in the game 'useless and non-challenging' doesn't help your case at all.

But you keep defending Civ5 to the hilt if you want!

And you keep on assuming the worst in everything.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

And you keep on assuming the worst in everything.

I don't want to keep assuming the worst, but the designers of the game-so far-really haven't left me with much choice.

 

[smellymummy]

well you cant just apply the base approach values (these change) from face value. city states far away are going to get a modification, while city states right next to him will probably fall into the conquest thing.

so with that said, if greece wants to conquer his close neighbors that's in line with alexander right? if he's going to bribe people on the other side of the continent, then that's in line with how to exploit his UT?

turn on logging and look at the stuff that changes every turn, there's a lot more than meets the eye.