Most dangerous Civilizations / Biggest threat Leaders

[GPR]

This game has 3 characteristics for leaders (nations):

aggression (friendly, normal, aggressive)
development (perfectionist, normal, expansionistic) - expand city/extend terytory.
militarism (civilized, normal, militaristic) - science/military

According to:

Civilization Intelligence Agency (CIA) - CivFanatics

Sid Meier's Civilization: Reference Civilization Intelligence Agency (CIA) Top Secret Reports Click a link to see individual civilization report... Americans Aztecs Babylonians Chinese Egyptians English French Germans Greeks Indians Mongols Romans Russians Zulus Or view all the reports on one...

www.civfanatics.com

Leaders (Civ1)

civilization.fandom.com

But ....
How its really? (in your opinion according to your experiences)
Which is militarily dangerous, which most terytory expansive, and which expand cities the most, and which is a threat in the space race (science)?
For obvious reasons, this question is for people who have completed the game at least several times.

I know that every game is different but...
Which nations developed the most, had the biggest army or developed the fastest in science?
Which ones gave you the hardest time?

 

[Tancretus]

If I have a game with Aztec, Zulus, Russians and Mongols I know I'll be having a hard time.

Babylonians & Egyptians really do go for that "culture" work. If left to own devices too long Indians become Mongols.

Side note- I've only ever had the Chinese live passed 1 AD in any game. They just, I dunno. But they cremated me when we finally met. (I was the Mongols, stuck fighting English, Egyptians, Romans. Got off that landmass and took on the French, met the Chinese with Submarines when I only had Ironclad, and that was downhill from here. B*stards had their own landmass all game.)

 

[GPR]

The subject is difficult and depends on the location on the map and the closest opponents.
The Mongols will be quite a threat if they get good weapons (whether by invention or conquering the city).
Egiptians like peace and development.
The Russians are probably the most dangerous.
The English have always been weak to me.

 

[Mize]

It really mostly depends on circumstances. Aggressive civs will grow very quickly if they have lots of land and soft neighbours to prey upon, while builder civs will do well when left alone to develop. On the other hand, aggressive civs tend to stagnate if they have no space and no neighbours to take over and shake down for cash and tech, while builder civs are almost always doomed if they share a larger landmass with, say, the Mongols or the Russians.

 

[Theov]

The "threat" level is a number from 0 to 6

It's based on the categories; Aggression, Development and Militarism.
Aggression: Friendly -> normal -> Aggressive
Development: Perfectionist -> normal -> Expansionistic
Militarism: Civilized -> normal -> Militaristic

Babylonians: 0 (they are friendly, perfectionist and Civilized)
America / Aztecs / Indians: 1
Chinese / Germans / Egyptians: 2
Romans: 3
English / French / Zulus: 4
Russians / Greeks: 5
Mongols: 6 (they are Aggressive, Expansionistic and Militaristic - and probably angry and crazy, too)

Then the score is calculated giving 0 for friendly/perfect/civ, 1 for normal, 2 points Aggr / Exp / Mil

After establishing an Embassy, you can see the traits in the diplomacy screen.
The traits can be scrambled mid-game by pressing ALT-R.

In games this is noticable by how easily they will attack you, declare war or demand stuff. How they develop their cities and civilization and develop their land and by how many cities they will try to build.

 

[pureciv]

Let me paraphase this:

America / Aztecs / Indians: 1 =Nerds
Chinese / Germans / Egyptians: 2 =pussies
Romans: 3 =dangerous
English / French / Zulus: 4 =dicks/napoleon/blubberlips
Russians / Greeks: 5 =playthemsoudonthavetodealwiththem/mega-aggro
Mongols: 6 (they are Aggressive, Expansionistic and Militaristic - and probably angry and crazy, too) =mental

 

[Theov]

Let me paraphase this:

America / Aztecs / Indians: 1 =Nerds
Chinese / Germans / Egyptians: 2 =pussies
Romans: 3 =dangerous
English / French / Zulus: 4 =dicks/napoleon/blubberlips
Russians / Greeks: 5 =playthemsoudonthavetodealwiththem/mega-aggro
Mongols: 6 (they are Aggressive, Expansionistic and Militaristic - and probably angry and crazy, too) =mental

You forgot the zero-point Babylonians.

 

[GPR]

Fun fact: In my language "baby" is slightly offensive plural term / synonym for "women's".

I'm making a CIV scenario and I can't decide if in isolation they will develop more and be harder to defeat:
Zulus/Babylonian

Babylonians tended to be more advanced in cities and science, Zulus is always backward. Even when they had a large area, they did not establish many cities to catch up. In melee their aggression is also debatable. As a neighbor, I am always stronger than them militarily or developmentally so Zulus want peace with me. Maybe this nation is agressive, but only against weak nation like Indian or Chinese.
They seem to be the easier opponent in every way than Babylonian. Babylonian at least develop more big cities and invent more science so have faster armor unit.

 

[GPR]

I've worked up a bit.
Almost the same map and, as far as possible, the same conditions for development. Time to 1AD.
I was working on save (I can't force JCIVED to play Indian instead of the Mongols).
Interestingly, the Mongols were the only ones who offered me peace (unlike the Russians, Greeks, Zulus, Aztecs).
I gives a save if someone wants to make a bigger control test.

 

[GPR]

I continues checking how indywidual nations develop when are left to themselves.
This time without checking if they seek out new lands.
Three game to 1 AD, Diff=4/emperor:

Zulu already on the second map there is an expansionist.

Zulu is most expansionist in this 6 (when his leader have normal I think). Where is English expansion?)

I still don't understand characteristic of leaders civilization.
Perfectionist civilization should be set to irrygation and expansionist to creation large number of city I think.

Zulu, English and Indian nation have the worst science (less tech count) -> normal militaristic when rest civilizations is civilized
Egypt, German and Chinese when have time to develop, can pose the biggest threat in late game. -> civilized civilization
Military Egitp and China is the worst.-> civilized

 

[GPR]

Roman and French are representatives of the expansionist nation.
Romans don't go beyond their continent but build a lot of city. French are even better than Romans.in this.

Science - only Indians are normal. All other nation is civilized.and this is visible. 2nd place on end is belong to Babylonian.

 

[rahorvat]

I have written about this somewhere during the past year as a part of OpenCiv1 development (ah yes, here: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/its-official-no-nuclear-gandhi-in-civ1.689806/).
Basically:

Mood: -1 = Friendly, 0 = Neutral, 1 = Aggressive
Policy: -1 = Perfectionist, 0 = Neutral, 1 = Expansionistic
Ideology: -1 = Militaristic, 0 = Neutral, 1 = Civilized

And yes, there are only three settings for each character trait. No famous nuclear Gandhi bug!

ID	Ruler name	Nation	Mood	Policy	Ideology
1	Caesar	Romans	0	1	1
2	Hammurabi	Babylonians	-1	-1	1
3	Frederick	Germans	1	-1	1
4	Ramesses	Egyptians	0	0	1
5	Abe Lincoln	Americans	-1	0	1
6	Alexander	Greeks	0	1	-1
7	M.Gandhi	Indians	-1	-1	0
9	Stalin	Russians	1	0	-1
10	Shaka	Zulus	1	0	0
11	Napoleon	French	1	1	1
12	Montezuma	Aztecs	0	-1	1
13	Mao Tse Tung	Chinese	0	0	1
14	Elizabeth I	English	0	1	0
15	Genghis Khan	Mongols	1	1	-1

Everything else is a result of terrain placement and randomness.

 

[GPR]

In Civilopedia we have:

 

[rahorvat]

In Civilopedia we have:

View attachment 730526

Haven't seen this table anywhere in the game. Civilopedia is only available in the game, anything else is the data people compiled from experience, studying the game code and such. Where does this table come from, please provide link
My table is derived directly from game code. It's possible that the table you quoted is based on my previous post that I mentioned.

Cheers

 

[GPR]

I create this tabel meybe 3 year ago (before I start this thread) to my own use and also to create civ scenario based on https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Leaders_(Civ1) .
I have this in exel and I change "behaviour" to "policy", "temperament" to "mood" and "develop" to "ideology" so as not to create confusion, add "Civ1 dos" and simply make screenshot
Now I see i have spelling mistake in tabel

 

[rahorvat]

I create this tabel meybe 3 year ago (before I start this thread) to my own use and also to create civ scenario based on https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Leaders_(Civ1) .
I have this in exel and I change "behaviour" to "policy", "temperament" to "mood" and "develop" to "ideology" so as not to create confusion, add "Civ1 dos" and simply make screenshot
Now I see i have spelling mistake in tabel

Great, so you deduced by yourself the characteristics of each leader Ah, you used my terminology (words) Some of the words I used are also used in the game directly.
You can also remove question marks on Zulus, because you got the Policy and Ideology right.

 

[GPR]

No. I dont guess, I get this data from link from above answer and from first post of this thread.
(Why people in these days is so lezy that not checked the link. Ehh)
But yeah, I know and had most of them data I my personal notes from 90s Amiga Civ.

I remember that among the rivals, the Egyptians, Germans, and Babylonians were always more advanced but have less army, while the Russians, French, Mongols, and Greeks always wanted war. This is also a bit of World history.
The Russians and Greeks always built a lot of weak units at the very beginning of the game and because of that they got blocked so were easy to defeat. Although troublesome if near to me.
I never have problem witch Chinese, Indians and Aztecs because were destroyed earlier.
But I have to say I always plays even most expansionist than them. -> https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/strategy-guide.564455/#post-16313322
I could count on one hand the number of games I have won by building a space station. I always tried to win militarily as quickly as possible so I rarely had problems with opponents being too scientifically advanced.
I often left one city of my enemy and tried to expand my nation it as much as possible. (like link above)
That's why when producing the GOT scenario I had a dilemma about which civilizations to choose and where to place them.

 

[rahorvat]

No. I dont guess, I get this data from link from above answer and from first post of this thread.
(Why people in these days is so lezy that not checked the link. Ehh)
But yeah, I know and had most of them data I my personal notes from 90s Amiga Civ...

Yes, I saw the site, but there is too much irrelevant information also. So I focused myself on proven facts (if possible double checked in code).
That's why I published the proven facts in my exploration and translation of original CIV1 code.

 

[GPR]

There is all the information. Just enter the given leader and you have a description of all his characteristic.
Only Shaka was not described exactly/literally and that is why there are question marks.
But it's great that you checked and confirmed it yourself for us, and most importantly that you're creating the CIV code from scratch.
If you create the whole code, it might be possible to modify it with new functions, improve game, make something that was missing in CIV1 with the same, simple tile graphics that I personally like the most. I have Civ4 but I dont never played it.
Bit this is offtop an I have last one, this time the aggressor map.

On the last map the Russians finally started to play something. However, it seems that they are aggressive, but more on their own continent. Overall, this civilization is showing off... rather weak?
And French also dont like sea.
The Zulus are pushing back again. Zulus is really that strong nation?
It is worth remembering that the "tech count" for the aggressors can be increased by the conquests of the nation whose city was conquered.

 

[Mize]

It might just be observer bias, but in my experience the Zulus seem to be a more fluid and adaptive civ than the other aggressive ones. Less wasteful on war and more likely to switch to higher forms of government when at peace.