Poll: Which Civilizations are least competitive in your games?

[Txurce]

I voted for the Mongols, Denmark, Aztecs and Songhai. Mongolia is a clear #1 for me, Denmark a clear #2. I would have added Spain and Rome as well, but pressed "Enter" too quickly. I also missed an "r" in "Germany." (Mods: any help here?)

I think the Ottomans may wind up not doing well for the AI in the coming months with their new UA, but doubt there's enough experience yet to show that.

 

[Seek]

This is proving more difficult than the last poll...

 

[Txurce]

Is the "public" thing an issue? Should we ask that it be changed?

 

[Zaldron]

I voted for Aztecs, England, Japan, and Rome. They all have a tendency to get into stalemate/losing wars without properly expanding and building infrastructure. Siam, Washington, Egypt, and Hiyawatha do well in almost every game, while Alexander is better or worse depending on how he does with CSes and warring.

EDIT: In general I found that Mongolia can actually do well in many starting positions while the four I listed tend to do poorly regardless of starting spot (in my experience).

 

[Thalassicus]

About a year ago Firaxis blocked AIs from attacking citystates in the early game. Removing that block would dramatically improve AI-Mongolia (and all other militaristic AIs), but we can't do that with our current modding tools. Likewise, Denmark and England are the two heavily naval civs. The AI doesn't perform well at naval combat, and we can't do much about it.

The last one is Montezuma. I intentionally designed him as the one "erratic AI" who doesn't have much loyalty, but doesn't hold grudges either. He often makes a lot of people mad and does poorly as a result. I think it gives him personality.

 

[pthmix]

Voted for Denmark, Japan, Ottomans, Songhai and Spain. The least competitive civ from my experience is Songhai. They are usually far behind in military techs, culture, territory, expansion and city states.

Monty is surprisingly successful in my games.

 

[albie_123]

I wish I could revote! I made a few mistakes. I voted originally for Aztecs, China, England, Japan, Mongolia, and Songhai.

For one thing, the Aztecs did very well in my last game! They actually managed to win their first war and were by far my greatest threat on one continent. I should add that Monty was doing abysmally in culture and tech - but his hordes of outdated soldiers still posed a decent opposition to my own smaller army.

Next, I've realised that Gandhi, despite being quite powerful when I play him, has never once been close to winning. Not sure why, but he's always just a bit behind everyone in every regard. I would have voted for him if I had thought about it a bit more.

Otherwise, Mongolia, England and Songhai are still the standout three in my games who have never come close to doing well. Denmark, surprisingly, have always done decently.

 

[qqqbbb]

Thal can you do something about AI building settlers but not millitary units when they are at war?

 

[Txurce]

Next, I've realised that Gandhi, despite being quite powerful when I play him, has never once been close to winning. Not sure why, but he's always just a bit behind everyone in every regard. I would have voted for him if I had thought about it a bit more.

My read on that wouldn't have led me to put him in the bottom tier - you know, the emergency cases!

I agree that the Aztecs are doing better. Not as good as Japan, but...

Thal can you do something about AI building settlers but not millitary units when they are at war?

This is the wrong thread for this.

 

[Thalassicus]

Well, the AIs ranking high in this poll are militaristic leaders, and choosing better units to build would make them do better. However... the alternative to AIs building settlers during war is not building settlers in war. It was much worse when they did that because warlike leaders get stuck with just a few cities and never expand. This is why I let them expand during war.

 

[Seek]

Can we expect AIs to start annexing puppets soon, Thal?

 

[Thalassicus]

I could do that once I get back to heavy-duty gameplay changes; I've been buried in the interface files lately.

 

[Txurce]

Well, the AIs ranking high in this poll are militaristic leaders, and choosing better units to build would make them do better.

Mongolia, the Aztecs and Denmark are in a league of their own in terms of being uncompetitive. If they are going to keep their character, they all need better military performance, as Thal said. Mongolia and the Aztecs also scored in the top three in terms of being played the least in the other poll. So with the latter two, the goal is to make them both stronger for the AI and more interesting for the human.

Denmark: like Mongolia, they can't do much with any of its traits. Historically Berserkers were called that because they fought as if they weren't hurt, much like the Japanese UA. But could we give all their units March? Obviously, the UU could also be made even stronger. (And of course the Norwegian Ski Infantry is much easier for the AI to use.)

Aztecs: their UA would gain strength, and their bad attitude would pay off more, if the Jaguar Warrior could do better and last longer. Buff it +2 and the Aztecs become a genuine threat to anyone around them, as well as more fun for the human racking up culture (making them even more flexible). They could also pick up MortalD's suggested woods/jungle healing. (This may seem like a lot, but keep in mind that it shouldn't make them more OP early on than Japan or, in a different way, Persia and Greece.)

Mongols: the downside for humans is that, like Denmark, all they do is warmonger - and they do it one way only (Keshiks with the Khan). Knowing it's Thal's favorite civ, I'm not going to suggest we vary them the way other 2-UU civs may be. My suggestion is that the Khan either be removed or replace the UA, then add a Horseman UU that has March (no Khan) or +1 movement, or both.

 

[Thalassicus]

And of course the Norwegian Ski Infantry is much easier for the AI to use.

The Jelling Stones provide culture without any special actions required, whereas the ski infantry requires a good understanding of how terrain bonuses work. The AI places rough-promoted units on open terrain in front of hostile enemies, so I don't think they handle terrain bonuses well.

What if the Jelling Stones are changed to...

"Each active military unit generates Culture for this city."
​

This would be more AI-friendly, and less focused on conquest, which should also help Denmark's "least played" poll ranking. Plus, the culture-from-conquest thing is going to be in the Nationalism tree soon.

 

[Txurce]

The Jelling Stones provide culture without any special actions required, whereas the ski infantry requires a good understanding of how terrain bonuses work. The AI places rough-promoted units on open terrain in front of hostile enemies, so I don't think they handle terrain bonuses well.

I'm not really pushing that, but... the AI do walk through rough terrain when possible (look at their Vanguard units). That's how I thought they could take advantage of the NSI. I didn't know if they built the Stones. If they do, I can see how this wouldn't make them any better for the AI.

 

[wobuffet]

Jelling Stones: Provides 2 per c5rangedstrength: for ranged units) for Units produced or bought in this City
?

 

[Thalassicus]

I gave the Jelling Stones AI priorities of 50 offense, defense, military training, culture, and wonders - extremely high priority for those needs (in comparison, the Great Library has 30-priority numbers). An easy way to tell if it's built is if any units have Morale.

 

[Seek]

Denmark: like Mongolia, they can't do much with any of its traits. Historically Berserkers were called that because they fought as if they weren't hurt, much like the Japanese UA. But could we give all their units March? Obviously, the UU could also be made even stronger. (And of course the Norwegian Ski Infantry is much easier for the AI to use.)

What if we gave Denmark Japan's UA (maybe keeping one or two aspects of the current UA, or making them unique promotions granted from the Jelling Stones) and rewrote Japan's?

Aztecs: their UA would gain strength, and their bad attitude would pay off more, if the Jaguar Warrior could do better and last longer. Buff it +2 and the Aztecs become a genuine threat to anyone around them, as well as more fun for the human racking up culture (making them even more flexible). They could also pick up MortalD's suggested woods/jungle healing. (This may seem like a lot, but keep in mind that it shouldn't make them more OP early on than Japan or, in a different way, Persia and Greece.)

This sounds good to me.

Mongols: the downside for humans is that, like Denmark, all they do is warmonger - and they do it one way only (Keshiks with the Khan). Knowing it's Thal's favorite civ, I'm not going to suggest we vary them the way other 2-UU civs may be. My suggestion is that the Khan either be removed or replace the UA, then add a Horseman UU that has March (no Khan) or +1 movement, or both.

Interesting! It might be cleaner if we drop the Khan, giving them a Stable replacement UB (Yurt?), that granted March to every mounted unit.

 

[Txurce]

What if we gave Denmark Japan's UA (maybe keeping one or two aspects of the current UA, or making them unique promotions granted from the Jelling Stones) and rewrote Japan's?

This is the hard way to go at it, but the most faithful. If you think about it, they're almost mirror images, except the Danes' embarkation UA makes them more interesting.

Presumably Japan's present trait was based on their soldiers' quasi-suicidal approach in WW2. Would Morale for all units or Blitz for all melee units be enough?

Interesting! It might be cleaner if we drop the Khan, giving them a Stable replacement UB (Yurt?), that granted March to every mounted unit.

That's the more clever approach, as long as they are as likely to build miscellaneous mounted units as they are an officical UU.

 

[albie_123]

Interesting! It might be cleaner if we drop the Khan, giving them a Stable replacement UB (Yurt?), that granted March to every mounted unit.

Ha, you read my mind, I'm actually making this right now! (Although I called it a Ger )



I'm having an odd problem with it though. For some reason, it keeps spitting out 'UNITCOMBAT_MOUNTED' and 'UNITCOMBAT_MOUNTED_ARCHER' despite them being legitimate unit classes...

[95435.546] Invalid Reference on Building_UnitCombatFreeExperiences.UnitCombatType - "UNITCOMBAT_MOUNTED_ARCHER" does not exist in UnitCombatInfos
[95435.546] Invalid Reference on Building_UnitCombatFreeExperiences.UnitCombatType - "UNITCOMBAT_MOUNTED" does not exist in UnitCombatInfos
[95435.546] Invalid Reference on Building_UnitCombatProductionModifiers.UnitCombatType - "UNITCOMBAT_MOUNTED" does not exist in UnitCombatInfos
[95435.546] Invalid Reference on Building_UnitCombatProductionModifiers.UnitCombatType - "UNITCOMBAT_MOUNTED_ARCHER" does not exist in UnitCombatInfos