Hiawatha doing what he does best

[HappyBuilder]

I'm still not buying it. If he starts with 1 settler, then that's the capital. Then he magically has 3 more settlers not merely produced, but SETTLED by turn 35?! WITH NO ANCIENT RUINS? AND his capital is a 5?!?!

I'd like to see it spelled out just how Hiawatha pulled that off. It does not add up.

HB

 

[George Abitbol]

I hate this guy. I'm sure he cheats, as said above, I can't see how he can get 3 settlers so quickly and keep growing. Anyway, Hiawatha as a neighbour = war! Prepare 7-10 CKN, pick Military tradition, get the Range promotion and kill him!

The worst bieng maps with one-tile island. By the modern era this guy colonizes every single island.

 

[EulerMcE]

I played Settler difficulty to see how fast I could do that. I got 3 settlers out and settled by turn 35 though my cap was at 3 pop. I did have ruins on and I got a worker as a result, which mimics the Immortal AI (with a delay). However I also got an early culture ruin.

I can see it being feasible for an Immortal AI to do this, with their worker from turn 1 and I think they can build their monument and granary faster than on settler.

 

[dexters]

I'd like to see his capital ; there's an unrelated long discussion about Iroquois in another thread I rather not link to, suffice to say, some disagree with me and think the Iroqouis is a bottom tier Civ.

Just had a look at the games files since I was curious about this myself

In BNW on all difficulties AI starts with 15 happiness (same as human on settler)

I believe AI handicap is Chieftain, not Settler, but likely both have a 15 base happiness.

 

[pozz]

I played Settler difficulty to see how fast I could do that. I got 3 settlers out and settled by turn 35 though my cap was at 3 pop. I did have ruins on and I got a worker as a result, which mimics the Immortal AI (with a delay). However I also got an early culture ruin.

I can see it being feasible for an Immortal AI to do this, with their worker from turn 1 and I think they can build their monument and granary faster than on settler.

I'll give this a go with IGE(to add a worker and remake the surroundings to fit that of the screenshot) and on settler later =) I guess that seeing that both of his 'middle' cities are 2, he may have produced a settler in one of those.

 

[George Abitbol]

some disagree with me and think the Iroqouis is a bottom tier Civ.

What exactly do you call a "bottom tier Civ"?

 

[Gabriel Pyyrhic]

Wait wut, I thought on Immortal they start with an extra settler other than the one they need for the capital.

I mean, I think I saw Germany once who had a settler around T20~. Without collective rule. So... I think he had 2-3 pop in Berlin.

IIRC Its an extra worker on IMORTAQL, extra SETTLER/WROKER on DIETY.

 

[ense7en]

I'd like to see his capital ; there's an unrelated long discussion about Iroquois in another thread I rather not link to, suffice to say, some disagree with me and think the Iroqouis is a bottom tier Civ.

I believe you are confusing ratings of a civ in HUMAN hands vs. in AI hands.

As an AI, Hiawatha is easily one of the best.
But when playing as Iroquois, they definitely are toward the bottom.
Two very different things.

 

[Zezima]

This thread makes me happy inside. I'm glad the community hates this cheating, gluttonous SOB as much as I do.

 

[dexters]

What exactly do you call a "bottom tier Civ"?

I'm not calling it that;a bunch of people voted it that. But it was clarified in the same thread that the voting was essentially for 'favourite' Civs to play, which is OK-- it's essentially a people's choice award with no bearing on the Civ's actual power. But by that time it was clarified, an involved side discussion about why the Incas were in the top 10 but the Iroqouis were not had kicked on; based entirely on 'power' of the Civ, which is a little bit different than popularity.

I believe you are confusing ratings of a civ in HUMAN hands vs. in AI hands.

As an AI, Hiawatha is easily one of the best.
But when playing as Iroquois, they definitely are toward the bottom.
Two very different thing

No misunderstanding. A Civ the AI is strong with should be something a human player can do well will, and that's a good indication of a 'strong' Civ with UA and benefits that is generally easy to work/exploit.

granted there are a lot of other Civs with UA and UB that take a human hand to shine, likes the Incas, but that's a given. If you think about it logically, a Civ the AI is strong with should be a strong Civ under human control. There is no 'AI way' of playing that makes it non-applicable to humans; AI-way maybe lack of micromanaging and lack of clarity, but that's about what you'd get from a casual player which is probably the bulk of the community.

Now, you could argue that a good human player can only get so much out of the Iroquois before plateauing and they could get 'more' out of others Civs, but that case was never really made in the other thread.

 

[Kageryu]

I recently got into civ 5 when BNW came out and I've been having a blast. After I starting moving into Prince and higher difficulties, I realized that the way AI can expand w/o experiencing a massive happiness issue was . So, I edited the main xml that controls AI handicaps and made the unhappiness accrue faster for the AI.

What ended up happening was that the AI expanded no matter what and didn't take into account its own happiness limit. By turn 200 and beyond, all the AIs have 7+ cities with negative happiness and constantly fight rebels while I pull ahead.

 

[crawf0rd]

I recently got into civ 5 when BNW came out and I've been having a blast. After I starting moving into Prince and higher difficulties, I realized that the way AI can expand w/o experiencing a massive happiness issue was . So, I edited the main xml that controls AI handicaps and made the unhappiness accrue faster for the AI.

What ended up happening was that the AI expanded no matter what and didn't take into account its own happiness limit. By turn 200 and beyond, all the AIs have 7+ cities with negative happiness and constantly fight rebels while I pull ahead.

That's why the happiness bonuses are there. The AI was, is, and probably always be atrocious at managing happiness. Maybe even oblivious to it.

 

[Arachnofiend]

There is no 'AI way' of playing that makes it non-applicable to humans

Yes there is. The AI bonuses, especially to happiness, make the Liberty oriented production civs much better in the AI hands than human (in comparison to how the AI and human play other civs). It also helps that Hiawatha's AI flavors just work better with the AI bonuses than others (IE Nebbs).

Now granted, I do think the Iroquois aren't bad by any means and make for a solid mid tier assuming the map isn't particularly stacked against them, but it's a little disingenuous to say that a good AI civ means a good human civ when we're playing an entirely different game than the AI.

 

[j51]

I never understood why they programmed the Iroquois AI to act like this. Historically, the Iroquois territory was not that big. It's civs like Russia, Greece, Spain, Arabia, Mongolia, and the USA that should be growing out of control. I always dial down Hiawatha's expansion down to 4 in my mod.

 

[Guandao]

I never understood why they programmed the Iroquois AI to act like this. Historically, the Iroquois territory was not that big. It's civs like Russia, Greece, Spain, Arabia, Mongolia, and the USA that should be growing out of control. I always dial down Hiawatha's expansion down to 4 in my mod.

The Iroquois was pretty warlike. They destroyed or assimilated many neighboring tribes (including linguistically related ones like the Huron/Wyandot, Erie, Susquehannock, Laurentians) They also pretty much annihilated many tribes in the Ohio river valley, which is why that area's tribes are one of least known.

 

[dexters]

Yes there is. The AI bonuses, especially to happiness, make the Liberty oriented production civs much better in the AI hands than human (in comparison to how the AI and human play other civs). It also helps that Hiawatha's AI flavors just work better with the AI bonuses than others (IE Nebbs).

Now granted, I do think the Iroquois aren't bad by any means and make for a solid mid tier assuming the map isn't particularly stacked against them, but it's a little disingenuous to say that a good AI civ means a good human civ when we're playing an entirely different game than the AI.

I agree that because of a happy accident of its traits, flavours and AI bonuses, Hiawatha benefits from it.

But you really haven't proven how the Iroqouis would be a poor Civ to play for humans who are sort of just clicking next turn and are unfocused or rather, 'less' focused in their planning. It requires far less planning and specific gambits and slingshots than many other Civs to do well in. That is my point. It's hardly disingenuous to point this out. There are plenty of other Civs that anecdotally I feel the AI tend to do well with that I have not said would be an easy romp for the human player who don't first pick up someone's guide on the optimal tech path for those free tech slingshots and other UA niceities. You also actually seem to walk back your critique by noting that the Iroqouis isn't a bad civ to play, if the map is not stacked against it, but that applies to other Civs too, and I would argue it's less fatal to the Iroquois who can find forests pretty much everywhere and can sort of work with heavy jungles through a heavier focus on a different set of SP and a different Pantheon.

I grant you again that that it is possible to point out that the Iroquois, under human control may 'plateau' and not perform as well as another Civ that would greatly benefit from the human micro-manger based on the nebulous metric of 'goodness' we are using. This is what you seem to assert that here. I have no problem with that.

I don't even particularly like to play the Iroquois, but such is the internet and how people get so quickly entrenched from one offhand comment about the wonky nature of those rankings and the unfairly low rank of the Iroquois

 

[Abraxis]

Has anyone pointed out how much gold he started out with? 6 at his capital, which, with his free workers were probably improved immediately, then settling Osinka brings it to +9. Seems to me he probably just bought 2 settlers, and got another from liberty.

 

[j51]

The Iroquois was pretty warlike. They destroyed or assimilated many neighboring tribes (including linguistically related ones like the Huron/Wyandot, Erie, Susquehannock, Laurentians) They also pretty much annihilated many tribes in the Ohio river valley, which is why that area's tribes are one of least known.

Yeah, that's why it would work better if he didn't build so many cities, but just took them and raized them.

 

[Vymrr]

How the hell do you guys see the screenshot? It's like 100x200 pixels when I click on 'Show Spoiler'?

 

[docbud]

^^Don't know. It looks fine when I view it.