Power of Creative Civ AI's; and Wang Kon...?

[DMOC]

Test games:

1. Comparing Kublai Khan and Wang Kon; Monarch, Continents, Normal speed

2. Seeing the power of Suryavarman II and the strangely slow expansion of Wang Kon; Monarch, Continents, Epic Speed



Okay, this has been a little bit strange to me.

I don't know if any of you have experienced this, but doesn't it seem that creative civs are ALMOST ALWAYS top contendors in games that they play in?

I was going to take the time to find as many games as I could from my own saves and online the forums (there are plenty that I have seen to reinforce my thought -- trust me), but I just cannot do that tonight. I might do that another time (show links to all games with creative civs being a top contendor), though.

Take, Louis XIV for example. That guy has always been a pain for 1. Expanding rapidly, and 2. Cultural victories. I played two games on monarch and emperor recently, with Louis XIV on another continent (this way I didn't have much influence on him) and he was almost close to a cultural victory when I won space races in both games. He always seems to have a huge landmass, for some reason (and he's not imperialistic). I remember my second emperor game that I played recently with Louis on another continent with Hammurabi and Victoria. Hammurabi and Victoria each ended up with about 6 or 7 cities while Louis XIV got SIXTEEN! And in a replay of the game, I found out that only one war was fought on the whole continent before I entered the fray and did some bribing. Louis razed 1 English city and...nothing else happened of major results in the war. I checked the 3 capitals of the 3 AIs, and they were perfectly balanced! How did Louis get so many more cities than Victoria (who is Imperialistic) and Hammurabi (who is organized so he can afford more cities)?

I can think of the top of my head several games with Louis XIV -- or other creative civilizations! -- being a strong contedor: aelf's second immortal challenge (Louis won the game and even vassalized Wang Kon; I will get to the weakness of Wang Kon later); Obsolete's immortal challenge where Willem van Oranje (Cre/Fin) conquered a whole continent; another Obsolete game where Hatshepsut (Cre/Spi) completely outexpanded Roosevelt on their continent; Catherine (Cre/Fin in warlords i think) in Sisutil's mehmed game... Catherine (Cre/Imp in BtS) in madscientist's first Shaka role play game where she completely wiped out De Gualle from the game...Zara Yaqob (Cre/Org) in pretty much EVERY game I play (oh yeah, and Zara in one of flouzemaker's games where he vassalized MONTEZUMA!)... I am sure there are many other games that I could use as an example.

The last creative civ I want to touch on is Kublai Khan (Agg/Cre). In my experience, he is the only agressive AI who has a dominant army AND a tech lead as well. Even Ragnar doesn't seem to match Kublai. I don't have saves for a game in which Kublai Khan won by once again, taking over a whole continent on one of my emperor games (I play continents often which means I do not influence what AI's do on the other continent until optics). I do remember, though, how Kublai Khan in Snaaty's current Don Deity game handled his continent quite well, vassalizing Shaka (I believe) and perhaps vassalizing another (I don't remember). I am hoping to play several more random maps while preselecting some creative civs to verify my belief (I have, believe me, played many games with creative civs to justify my belief).

So why is it that creative civs are often top contendors? Pericles, too, is a top contendor for cultural victories like Louis XIV and he is creative as well. Is it because the AI's are slow to pop borders so they have less land initially? I don't really know how creative civs do well in this game. Does anyone else have this nagging feeling of how creative civs seem to do better (in most cases -- yes I know that tundra starts will nerf any civ but an average start...).

The second part of my thinking that occurred for the past week was the weakness of Wang Kon (Fin/Pro) as an AI.

Now, at first, I was thinking, WHAT?!? This guy should be one of the best AI players! Financial is self-explanatory...and PROTECTIVE! He should be able to fend off AI axemen attacks with uber longbows due to his teching!

But that is not the case as I have been noticing often. From time to time, whenever I see Wang Kon in games, he NEVER seems to do well and is usually defeated or on the bottom of the scoreboard. I have had that experience as well in my games (once again--these were games where Wang was on a different continent and not isolated so I had nothing to do with early rushes or anything like that).

Some games which Wang Kon has not done well in:

1. Aelf's immortal challenge again, as mentioned above, where Louis XIV (Creative civ!!!) vassalized Wang Kon.

2. Flouzemaker's Suleiman game where Wang Kon was eliminated early. Now, you may argue that Flouzemaker rushed him, but from reading the game, De Gualle of France did almost all the damage to Wang Kon so if De Gualle and Wang Kon were by their own on the same landmass they were playing on, De Gualle probably would have vassalized him.

3. 3 of obsolete's wonder spam games, where Wang Kon was vassalized by catherine in one and (in his current without the mids one) was eliminated completely (looks like Montezuma work, and if you are arguing that Wang Kon is eliminated because he has agressive civs nearby, take a look back in my post about Zara Yaqob -- yet another creative civ -- who vassalized Montezuma when they were on their own island). In a third one, Wang was eliminated but the human player (obsolete) was directly involved so we can ignore that.

4. There was a story in the stories/tales forum relating to Korea, but the maker terminated it because when he made contact with Wang Kon, what do you know? Wang already vassalize early.

5. One of my recent games with Wang on another continent who was defeated completely by Mehmed II.

I have browsed through countless games and I am sure that I saw several more games with Wang Kon on the bottom of the scoreboard, so I'm wondering, what's with him? He's not like Tokugawa (I can understand why Tokugawa never seems to be a top contendor, but Wang Kon...?).

My last thing to say is, does anyone agree with this? Does anyone notice this tendency? If anyone can provide saves, or links to other threads with dominating creative civs or a weak wang kon, or maybe a reverse, with wang kon ruling the world, I'd like to know. And yes, I KNOW that various factors such as starting land, etc affect how civs do, but this tendency.....

And I would also like to know why creative civs seem to do so well...I would rather have a financial trait.

 

[Howard!]

The French struggle...

I won a game through a space race in 1750 with the french on an Earth 34... The French are awesome to use in that map because Europe is so compact. Just declare war and take... I took the English by culture.

Bak to the topic. The same can be said for sitting bull. He always screws himself over. If you start near him, and refuse one of his random demands, no matter my power he has always decleared war on me... Wait, did I say war, I meant an invasion by his one warrior!

Normally he ends up as a one city vassal (anywhere on the globe) and yeah... He is the bastard who always buggers up my attempt to change the world the environmentalism in order to lauch my attack of creative jewlers inc. executives upon the world [damn commi-nazis!]. That's right, he always votes never to my environmentalism proposal!

 

[DMOC]

Yeah Sitting Bull is another weak AI player, I've noticed. Although he did do well in a Dutch immortal game or something like that I recall.

More comments?

 

[Sjaramei]

Gilgamesh is insane too, if he is in the game you can be sure he will get a huge empire.

 

[Howard!]

I think the thing is that some computers need some really specific circumstance for them to do well. I remember one game where Monty the space race... He was near a domination!

 

[Unthinking Pain]

Suvarayman (sp?) also seems to do well.

I think the AI doesn't do a great job chopping out Monuments and getting border pops fast enough, and that can slow their whole game down.

 

[VirusMonster]

na, I think the many examples you gave do not prove your point... 100s of games are being played and written up in these forums; some of them would have to be won by creative leaders, that is all.

Creative is a somewhat good trait at Deity Difficulty however. It helps you to block AI settlers from crossing you territory, because building those monuments and waiting for border expansion takes some time.

 

[von Krysiak]

Yeah there are many AI players I could mention:
Napoleon is a maniac, war junkie and is very likely that he will hve a huge empire - so is Catharina and Gilgamesh.
Monty is just an another example of a neighbour you dont want to be getting
But MOST dangerous (at lest fairly early in the game) are Genghis Khan, Wang Kon - them guys expand like crazy and in the effect their technology lacks behind. But if they start a war before their technology is outdated they will make short work of anyone.
In Most of my games I always see Hannibal, Zara Yaqub, Isabela as most advanced nations plus the combination of any of the above leaders due to their large territory and population...

 

[Iranon]

Traits matter little compared to personality... and as it happens the Creative AIs tend to follow a balanced and sound strategy:

Catherine, Gilgamesh and Suryavarman are opportunistic warmongers, being a menace without screwing up their economy by default.
Pericles and Louis are the usual suspects to go for a cultural victory, which can be quicker than the usual spaceship approach especially if there was a lot of fighting in the game.
Zara Yacob and Willem are first-rate empire builders who don't totally neglect their military as others often do; Zara is quite good at getting a big empire without being backwards and Willem just plays to win... nobody else managed to surprise me as much in the late game (beeline military techs and competently starting world wars, a switch to a cultural victory strategy, unexpected naval invasions...).

I haven't really seen Kublai Khan do anything amazing so far (for some reason, the Mongols are usually far away from me if they are in the game), and Hatshepsut seems a total push-over.

***

If there is something in CRE itself rather than the associated personalities... maybe it's because the AI is completely pants at picking good city sites and CRE prevents them from shooting themselves in the foot too badly?
People who played more games with random personalities might be able to verify this.

 

[von Krysiak]

Traits matter little compared to personality... and as it happens the Creative AIs tend to follow a balanced and sound strategy:

Catherine, Gilgamesh and Suryavarman are opportunistic warmongers, being a menace without screwing up their economy by default.
Pericles and Louis are the usual suspects to go for a cultural victory, which can be quicker than the usual spaceship approach especially if there was a lot of fighting in the game.
Zara Yacob and Willem are first-rate empire builders who don't totally neglect their military as others often do; Zara is quite good at getting a big empire without being backwards and Willem just plays to win... nobody else managed to surprise me as much in the late game (beeline military techs and competently starting world wars, a switch to a cultural victory strategy, unexpected naval invasions...).

I haven't really seen Kublai Khan do anything amazing so far (for some reason, the Mongols are usually far away from me if they are in the game), and Hatshepsut seems a total push-over.

***

If there is something in CRE itself rather than the associated personalities... maybe it's because the AI is completely pants at picking good city sites and CRE prevents them from shooting themselves in the foot too badly?
People who played more games with random personalities might be able to verify this.

I totally agree with you on Zara Yaqub - last game I was playing on Huge map/Epic I conquesred one player and then had Zara and 5 other more or less backward civs left there. While I wanted to build up my economy and techs Zara beelined his military techs so he remained on EXACTLY same lvl as me AND managed to vasalize every other civ on the continent so my tanks had to wage war against him and hordes of longbowmen and knights as well!

 

[JustinianVII]

Pericles is a culture monster. Creative/Philosophical means the free +2, faster Great People, cheaper Libraries, Theatres, Odeons (which gives +3 culture), Universities...it's a bit easier for him.

 

[pi-r8]

Suvarayman (sp?) also seems to do well.

I think the AI doesn't do a great job chopping out Monuments and getting border pops fast enough, and that can slow their whole game down.

I think this is the reason why the AI does well with creative leaders. Often I'll see them with multiple size 1, 0 culture cities, all doing nothing but ruining their economy. Creative just fixes one of the AI's largest problems.

Also, I don't agree about Wang Kon. Sure he's not the best AI, but he's not too bad either. I had one game where he vassalized 3 other AIs, then came after me with the largest modern army I've ever seen.

 

[DMOC]

I think this is the reason why the AI does well with creative leaders. Often I'll see them with multiple size 1, 0 culture cities, all doing nothing but ruining their economy. Creative just fixes one of the AI's largest problems.

Also, I don't agree about Wang Kon. Sure he's not the best AI, but he's not too bad either. I had one game where he vassalized 3 other AIs, then came after me with the largest modern army I've ever seen.

really? wow, that's a first for me.

So the AI doesn't really expand their borders is what I was thinking about when I wrote this. I also didn't seem to notice much of a difference in the AI personalities so maybe the Creative civs are by chance good traders with a strong military.

I really should do a demo game, perhaps I will post one up here preselecting some AI's.

 

[AfterShafter]

All the Ai's are on Noble, and on Noble, traits aren't nearly as game breaking as they are on higher difficulties. Civs with great traits have notably less of an advantage on Noble since everyone is pretty damned good. Thus, a guy who is a very, very good leader/Civ like Wang Kon of the Koreans does reflectively poorly compared to other Civs who might not be as good.

Also, as was said, personality matters more. Wang just doesn't go for the jugular... Mansa Musa has the personality he should have - total ass kisser, keeping him diplomatically well off, absolute tech monkey.

 

[DMOC]

Well a lot of games that I noticed were not on noble difficulty level, they were actually on emperor, immortal, and so on.

On noble I understand that AI traits aren't game breaking and therefore that's why AI's often do not become extremely powerful on lower difficulties but on immortal difficulty in my games and the games I notice on the forums, Wang keeps getting his ass kicked.

 

[morchuflex]

Hello.

I think creative is underrated. To experience how good this trait is, the best way is to play a lot of creative games, then revert to a non-creative leader. Talk about suffering!

After playing Louis a lot, and doing decently on emperor, I decided to play a non-creative leader. It was a real pain, because all the great city sites I had in my vicinity demanded border expansion to shine (that is, the key resources were always TWO tiles away). Three of my cities had huge potential, but I first had to build monuments, and it took forever, because the adjacent tiles contained no food resources (hence no whipping) and little production.
And after the monuments were completed, I still had to wait 10 more turns for the expansion to occur.

Of course, newbies will say something like "why didn't you build Stonehenge" or "why didn't you found a religion"... But this is Emperor level, which pretty much excludes early religions except for financial leaders or those starting with mysticism. And I don't want to rely on the dubious habit of always building the same early wonder. Furthermore, I play archipelagoes, and I need my capital's forests for the absolutely essential GLH.

Overall, I think creative is a great trait, especially on water maps, when you depend a lot on seafood and need to hook these fishes ASAP, not in twenty-five turns.

 

[Still_Asleep]

Hello.

I think creative is underrated. To experience how good this trait is, the best way is to play a lot of creative games, then revert to a non-creative leader. Talk about suffering!

After playing Louis a lot, and doing decently on emperor, I decided to play a non-creative leader. It was a real pain, because all the great city sites I had in my vicinity demanded border expansion to shine (that is, the key resources were always TWO tiles away). Three of my cities had huge potential, but I first had to build monuments, and it took forever, because the adjacent tiles contained no food resources (hence no whipping) and little production.
And after the monuments were completed, I still had to wait 10 more turns for the expansion to occur.

Of course, newbies will say something like "why didn't you build Stonehenge" or "why didn't you found a religion"... But this is Emperor level, which pretty much excludes early religions except for financial leaders or those starting with mysticism. And I don't want to rely on the dubious habit of always building the same early wonder. Furthermore, I play archipelagoes, and I need my capital's forests for the absolutely essential GLH.

Overall, I think creative is a great trait, especially on water maps, when you depend a lot on seafood and need to hook these fishes ASAP, not in twenty-five turns.

Chopping works, even outside your cultural boarders. In the rare case you dont have a food ressource for whiping OR a hill for a quick mine OR 1-2 trees for quick chopping, you should consider settling in the slightly suboptimal spot to get a decent start - but all those circumstances rarely kick in at once.

Creative is a fine trait, but I come along without it pretty well, playing 18 civ pangea on emporer/immortal.

 

[Supr49er]

Chopping works, even outside your cultural boarders. In the rare case you dont have a food ressource for whiping OR a hill for a quick mine OR 1-2 trees for quick chopping, you should consider settling in the slightly suboptimal spot to get a decent start - but all those circumstances rarely kick in at once.

Creative is a fine trait, but I come along without it pretty well, playing 18 civ pangea on emporer/immortal.

If the forest is between you and a rival, mouse over the chop icon to see who will get the benefit of the chop. I have chopped only to see a rival city suddenly complete their build.

 

[jray]

If the forest is between you and a rival, mouse over the chop icon to see who will get the benefit of the chop. I have chopped only to see a rival city suddenly complete their build.

Yeah, that's the stupidest game mechanic ever! It would be one thing if it was an automated Worker, which we all know are morons. But this is just a case of sheer laziness and insubordination. "Uh, we have to climb a hill to take this wood back to Antium. Let's just take it to Edirne instead."

 

[ChristofferC]

Well a lot of games that I noticed were not on noble difficulty level, they were actually on emperor, immortal, and so on.

On noble I understand that AI traits aren't game breaking and therefore that's why AI's often do not become extremely powerful on lower difficulties but on immortal difficulty in my games and the games I notice on the forums, Wang keeps getting his ass kicked.

The thing is that the AI:s always play on Noble difficulty, no matter what difficulty the player chooses. If all the AI:s got the same bonuses as the player on all difficulty levels, there woulden't be much difference between settler and diety.