Poll: Worst Programmed AI

[Elponitnatsnoc]

See the sister thread here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=156137

Vote based on this criteria:

- [Lack of] Realism of Cariciture (for the ancient ones, it's kind of hard to tell. Use your own judgement)
- [Lack of] Historical Representation of that AI in real life. I.E. I find Genghis Khan's tendencies to be much like they were in real life.
- [Lack of] Overall intelligence of that AI. Does he/she do stupid things a lot? Don't count the super-aggressive nature for Genghis or Monte for this unless they are a OCC and delcare on you or extreme cases like that. Don't count the xenophobic nature of Tokugawa since that's how he was in real life.
- Dialogue. CIV IV dialogue is supposed to be comical- I know. But the tone and mood of the leader's dialogue is somewhat reflected. Don't count this as much as the other criteria.
Edit: New criteria: Lack of success of that leader in your experience.

 

[DraconisRex]

I don't like Montazuma because he's not only erratic, but because he was a complete push-over for the Spanish despite having a 300-1 superiority. I know the Spanish had a technological edge, but they had MUSKETS which are slow fire. One good rush and it should have been over.

 

[HawkeyeGS]

You must remember Montazuma 1 (the in-game Mnty is num 2) thought Cortez was a god and hence gave him a buch of gold and let the Spanish army into the city. It was a bit hard for Monty 2 to come back after this.

 

[HawkeyeGS]

I think Louis is the worst because he is so stupid and overestimates his abilities in the game always demanding tribute from you when you are the one witht the milititary might. Not to mention his belief in his dress-sense.

 

[Shardie]

I don't like Montazuma because he's not only erratic, but because he was a complete push-over for the Spanish despite having a 300-1 superiority. I know the Spanish had a technological edge, but they had MUSKETS which are slow fire. One good rush and it should have been over.

I believe its a myth that the spanish, and spanish alone destroyed the Aztec empire. He did have ALOT of help from the disgruntled Natives who despised the Aztecs, thier armies were similar in size when it came down to the siege of the Aztec capital...

 

[DraconisRex]

You must remember Montazuma 1 (the in-game Mnty is num 2) thought Cortez was a god and hence gave him a buch of gold and let the Spanish army into the city. It was a bit hard for Monty 2 to come back after this.

I'm not much of an America's history buff. But I think you've got your Monty #'s mixed up. Of course, it could be Monty 1 and I was assuming Monty 2. It's not like they said something like "King George the Third" or anything.

But I've always assumed it was Monty II because he was such a warmonger. Much more so than Monty I who was expansionistic, but did not run the brutal, blood-thirsty empire that Monty II ran and it's incredible need for human sacrifices.

MONTEZUMA [Montezuma] or Moctezuma , 1480?-1520, Aztec emperor (c.1502-1520). He is sometimes called Montezuma II to distinguish him from Montezuma I (ruled 1440-69), who carried on conquests around Tenochtitlán.
His reign was marked by incessant warfare, and his despotic rule caused grave unrest. When Hernán Cortés arrived in Mexico he was thus able to gain native allies, notably in the province of the Tlaxcala. Montezuma, believing the Spanish to be descendants of the god Quetzalcoatl , tried to persuade them to leave by offering rich gifts. That failing, he received them in his splendid court at Tenochtitlán in Nov., 1519. Cortés later seized him as a hostage and attempted to govern through him. In June, 1520, the Aztec rose against the Spanish. Montezuma was killed, although whether by the Spanish or the Aztec is not certain. His successor died a few months later and was replaced by Cuauhtémoc . Montezuma's name is linked by a legend to fabulous treasures that the Spanish appropriated and presumably lost at sea.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/M/Montezum.asp

 

[Aramazd]

Spoiler :

Spoiler try again :

Tokugawa he just won't agree to open borders and he is way too aggressive

 

[Mmmm Butter]

I voted for Caesar because he tends to be so peaceful. I've only seen him declare war once in all my games. He also never seems to build up one of the more powerful militaries either.

 

[michael4000]

Montezuma just doesn't look very Aztec to me. He looks like some guy from Pennsylvania at a costume party.

 

[Daarkseid]

I voted for Caesar because he tends to be so peaceful. I've only seen him declare war once in all my games. He also never seems to build up one of the more powerful militaries either.

In one of the few games of mine that he showed up in, he came to dominate his continent because he had won an early war with India(India was wiped out). When I finally made contact with his continent, he controlled roughly half of it, and had a massive population in all of his cities, and his borders were pressing into his neighbors. It was after he completely crushed the neighboring Persians that I launched what would become a World War, as I was able to easily get everyone near Caesar to join me.

Apparently, he must've had a number of wars going on early if he had such poor relations. The only person who seemed to have a good diplomatic standing with him was me.. until I stabbed him in the back of course.

EDIT: The worst one I can think of was Louis the XIV, as somebody else explained. I've observed in more than one game his tendency to attack early and to demand tribute without much of a position to do so effectively. The worst he did was rush me with chariots, which I was unprepared for. He destroyed a city and razed a number of improvements, but didn't seem to follow up his attacks. After a number of turns, I'd secured my cities and hunted down the hirsute chariots. He sued for peace several turns later, without ever violating my borders again.

 

[Desert-Fox]

I voted for tokugawa, just he is so stupid... he doesn't know that without friends and trade he will get backward soon. In almost every game they will be in bottom.

 

[gettingfat]

I think Louis is the worst because he is so stupid and overestimates his abilities in the game always demanding tribute from you when you are the one witht the milititary might. Not to mention his belief in his dress-sense.

In one game he declared war on me, even we shared the same religion and had a +5 diplomatic rating. A few turns later I realized his great "army" consists of just 2 stacks of archers and chariots, each stack of 4-5 units only. At that point I had 4-5 elephants, 2-3 catapults and a few axemen in each of my border city (I was actually planning to attack another civ, which has different religion). In next 30+ turns his 4 pathetic cities were captured by my rampaging elephants. What an idiot!

 

[lord_graywolfe]

i havent had any dealing with louis so i had to vote for peter. i get him in alot of games and he is such an ass kisser. he always takes on my religeon even if he has one of his own, he is always pleased with me even after i refuse to open borders or trade anything with him. i attacked him once to take a city that was the only source of iron in the area. he has only archers so i take the city with little problem and ask for peace. he agrees to peace and is back to be pleased with me like nothing happened. im not a history expert but this doesnt sound like peter the great to me.

 

[SenhorDaGuerra]

i *always* start near Tokugawa. man its so frustrating. he may well have been like that in real life, but he had the muscle to back him. in most of my games, he is near to the bottom of the pile in terms of points (and intelligence) and he always tries to find an excuse to declare war on me, give me a tech, give me a gold, u trade with the vile chinese, how dare you! type of attitudes. he even declares war on me when we have the same religion! what a dumbass!

 

[Chalid]

I did not vote because in Civ IV the AI's are not programmed individually (as in other games). So technically they are all treated by the same code and are only different by as set of roughly 80 parameters with most of the parameters beeing correlated. This means that they all will act similar, e.g. they all have the same style to make war, but some attack without advantage, others only if they outnumber you.

So if you ask which is the worst parameterized AI i would say most are quite good, but the question about the worst programmed one is to be answerd with: They are all bad.

 

[ellie]

It would have to be catherine

'Hello Ellie is that a treaty in your pocket or are you pleased
to see me'

 

[SPQR300]

The best is Gandhi IMHO The worst is Togukawa.

 

[gettingfat]

I did not vote because in Civ IV the AI's are not programmed individually (as in other games). So technically they are all treated by the same code and are only different by as set of roughly 80 parameters with most of the parameters beeing correlated. This means that they all will act similar, e.g. they all have the same style to make war, but some attack without advantage, others only if they outnumber you.

So if you ask which is the worst parameterized AI i would say most are quite good, but the question about the worst programmed one is to be answerd with: They are all bad.

I understand you point but I don't agree with you. If they are different in the parameters that affect their behaviour then they are somewhat different, even those parameters will feed in the same set of program writen by the same set of codes. In other words, different input, same coding, different output.

The AI civs do act differently. I've never seen a single time Tokugawa open border. Catherine is way more flexible. So in a sense Tokugawa is not programmed as well as Catherine to take advantage of the situation. It reflects in the score. Some AI civs always have better scores.

 

[sliganian]

I voted for Hatsheput.

She is wearing Nefertti's head-dress for crying out loud!

For a game that prides itself on historical accuracy they sure messed up drawing Hatsheput.

 

[mjs0]

I voted Tokugawa.

Actually I like the fact that he has a fairly unique and realistic personality but the fact that he has never been even close to competitive in any of the games I have played outweighs all of that.