In high levels, which leader is the most dangerous in AI "hands"?

[kivanc]

Ahoy there! I will write my own opinions on this later. My aim for this thread is to discuss with friends about

which leaders AI plays better?
which leaders AI doesn't know how to play?
can we guess which leader will later be our main enemy, when first met?

So I'm not asking neither who is strong in human hands nor which trait or UU/UB is better but I'm asking who you consider strong in AI hands. So just remember your games, think about leader characteristics as well. Who were the AI leaders that taught you the most? Who made you change your play style at most? Specifically in levels >= emperor

I don't want to list all, I will just write below the ones that I've been in a bad contact most frequently
1) Joao
2) Cathy
3) Julius Caesar
4) Justinian
5) Mehmed II
6) Huayna Capac
7) sb else

 

[Fleme]

On Immortal and Deity it seems that ZY and Gilgamesh do well pretty every time as creative really plays well with the AI and those two are balanced out for a well-rounded play of war and peace. Joao is always strong because he makes such a huge landgrab (esp on Deity, it's ridiculous) as well as Cathy.

If you want to look for AI's who always lose, go for Wang Kon, Lincoln, Gandhi, Hatshepsut - they're too peaceful for your average high difficulty map and will be eaten alive by one of the more warlike leaders thus empowering them even more.

Heck, in our current offline Deity game we had Hannibal singlehandedly destroy a team of Gandhi/Suryavarman, ending up with a 20+ city empire.

Basically any leader who's good at both war and at peace will do well at high levels as the AI while those who focus on only one or the other will usually be the ones trampled on.

 

[Silu]

2 obvious always-losers that weren't mentioned: Tokugawa and Sitting Bull. The former doesn't open borders below Pleased and doesn't trade techs below Friendly(!) which basically always leads him to be a backwards isolationist that no one likes. The latter spams units and espionage, but has alot of problems with declaring war (in a way more peaceful than Gandhi) and because of his peaceweight serves as a lightning rod for the warlike Civs.

 

[kivanc]

2 obvious always-losers that weren't mentioned: Tokugawa and Sitting Bull. The former doesn't open borders below Pleased and doesn't trade techs below Friendly(!) which basically always leads him to be a backwards isolationist that no one likes. The latter spams units and espionage, but has alot of problems with declaring war (in a way more peaceful than Gandhi) and because of his peaceweight serves as a lightning rod for the warlike Civs.

i didn't mention them bec they are most of the time loosers as you also mentioned.
i am asking opinions about which AI leaders generally are

* the winners
* the tech leaders
* the scoreboarders
* the most expansionist ones
etc.
shortly, the guys who you are in great trouble with, in your games, mots of the time. and peaceful builder guys like mansa musa are also normally out of this classification.

hannibal and napoleon are also generally strong dogs, yes.

it is mostly bec AI knows how to play some traits and UU/UBs well, while he doesn't know other some.

i would like people to discuss these. any more opinions?

 

[Lone Wolf]

The former doesn't open borders below Pleased and doesn't trade techs below Friendly(!)

Toku trades techs at Pleased, but only the techs everyone but the guy to whom he's trading them knows.

 

[Silu]

Toku trades techs at Pleased, but only the techs everyone but the guy to whom he's trading them knows.

Hmh, I was pretty sure that was "but only the techs everyone knows including the guy he's trading to", kinda defeating the point of "tech trading"

 

[ahmedhadzi]

Lately I noticed Saladin being very good and advanced in tech and then becomes vassal of some stronger military state (once Ragnar and once one of the Roman guys). In both cases I was trying some new stuff and got DOW and those teams killed me, with Roman and Celts sending brute force and Saladin supplementing their armies with advanced units (I play Monarch).
Joao is one big land grabber and can become pretty strong if left alone, similar like Pascal.

 

[dirtyparrot]

The creative leaders tend to do fairly well (with the exception of Hatty and Louis). Gilgamesh, Zara, Catty, and Sury tend do well because of their ability to balance things. The smarter warmongers can do fairly well too (e.g. Ragnar, Hanny, Napoleon), although any warmonger who manages to get the ball going can do well. The land grabbers also fare fairly well if enough land is available. The truly pacifist tend not to do well.

 

[fenrus]

Hannibal always seems to be a tough cookie. He techs well and always has a huge standing army. He doesn't declare war for no reason like Alexander or Ragnar.

 

[Nares]

* the winners

Any AI which can go culture.

* the tech leaders

Any AI with FIN.

* the scoreboarders

Entirely map dependent; generally any AI who can expand well.

* the most expansionist ones

Any AI with IMP.

But AIs who lead these categories are not necessarily the most dangerous AI leaders.

There are also a number of less visible elements to AI personality. For example, Vicky isn't a strong AI leader, despite having traits which dominate two of the four categories you list.

One leader you should add to the list is Mao. He doesn't top any of those categories, but he's still a strong AI leader.

 

[Lyoncet]

One leader you should add to the list is Mao. He doesn't top any of those categories, but he's still a strong AI leader.

Really? In my games he always underexpands and ends up small and backwards with nothing but a half-decent hammer count to keep him from an early, early grave. Could just be his starts though.

 

[kivanc]

There are also a number of less visible elements to AI personality. For example, Vicky isn't a strong AI leader, despite having traits which dominate two of the four categories you list.

One leader you should add to the list is Mao. He doesn't top any of those categories, but he's still a strong AI leader.

Yep. I also noticed AIs play some traits well. Especially CRE, FIN, IMP etc.
It's not only about traits but about what he favors and what his tendencies are I guess. Character generally. So just as you said, I've never seen Victoria to be very strong in a game and Mao being not weak. I find no synergy within Mao's traits and UU/UB, still AI plays him well.

your strongest enemy generally becomes the one who has been able to expand most.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Creative/REX leaders that have a decent unitprob defined in the XML usually wind up with enough land and production base to become threats. The more aggressive ones can really run away, but any of the following will do well on average:

Joao
Cathy
Gilgamesh
Sury
Zara
Shaka (high levels only)

Some are obviously easier to fight than others, but they are all trouble if left alone via either tech pace or military on other AIs (or you).

The tier 2 AIs are close and are the other speed expanders like justinian/genghis khan/etc.

Basically combining its flavors only does so much...the AI beats other AIs via brute force land. An AI that mixes military with an at least average tech rate and out-expands other AIs will outperform specialist AIs most of the time.

 

[Junuxx]

In my games (Prince or Monarch most of the time) tech whores Musa and Willem tend to really run out of control. Joao and Charlemagne can get scary if they have a lot of land to expand into.

 

[kivanc]

I have never seen an AGG leader to be a top dog. They attack very frequently and never get bored of it but mostly i haven't seen AGG leaders to have territory like Joao or Cathy has. They are geenrally bad in tech, including Vikings. although AI plays FIN well, I find Ragnar a weak guy, he generally is a vassal of somebody.
An exception of AGG, Kublai likes expansion and can be a trouble but yet I haven't seen him do tech well. So he generally don't have higher tech units than u. IMP/PRO Charlemagne is similar in this case. He's generally large but he's not surprised me much.

rather peaceful tech leader AI guys like mansa musa, roosevelt, lizzy et. generally don't become a threat and can be an easy victim if u're roughly in same level with him in means of military tech.

most CRE AI guys are dangerous, yet there are some AI guys which didn't attack me much. ZY and even gilgamesh is generally peaceful. Suryavarman is a backstabber, I don't trust him. But he is generally bad at tech. So he's not a very big threat IMO, yet he surprised me once in a game which was completely my fault, not of his shining mind.

The guys who frequently ask for tribute are generally the most dangerous guys and are the biggest alarm for me. Joao, Cathy, Mehmed, Justinian etc. If I meet them early close to BFC, they are generally the one that I attack first.