Ranking which Civs the AI plays best

[Roghar]

I pretty much only play single-player games against the AI. It seems that the AI plays certain civs better than others, whose advantages it fails to exploit.

I'd appreciate opinions on which enemy civs to select to make the most interesting game.

 

[westamastaflash]

I pretty much only play single-player games against the AI. It seems that the AI plays certain civs better than others, whose advantages it fails to exploit.

I'd appreciate opinions on which enemy civs to select to make the most interesting game.

Doviello. On noble I've seen stacks of axemen conquer other AI civs like crazy. At least on Nikis-Knights map, the amurites rarely live past turn 150.

 

[vivictius]

Not sure about the best but the worst is probably the lurchurip (either leader). They just dont seem to make any golems. Mid way through the game (about as long as they last) they still have warriors defending their cities when they could make iron golems. Dont know what the problem is.

 

[vorshlumpf]

Yeah, Luichirp are bad. And I find the Doviello are almost always at the bottom of the list.
Khazad do well points-wise but eventually die off from too few cities (too few even for the dwarves).

 

[DeaExMachina]

Since Shadow the Calabim have been consistently doing well in all my games. They seem to be the only Civ I can count on to do decently irregardless of the settings. Still its hard finding a Civ that does even as well as they did with Warrior/Catapult/Disciple armies of .25 right now. >_>

And I'm sure the Luchiurp problem is from them not building the Golem Workshop much like the AI having issues with the other buildings.

 

[Alsark]

Hyborem always seems to suck in all of the games I've played. Maybe the AI doesn't know how to handle him since he plays so differently... or maybe it's just that he starts off a bit too late. In fact, Basium doesn't generally end up too well off, either (though generally better than Hyborem if I can recall correctly).

I'm in a game right now and the Sidar seem to be doing fairly well... not sure if they usually do, though (this is the first game I've seen them in "Shadow"). Capria seems to do at least decently well generally, too. Or, at least, in the last two games I've played she has been mid to high tier on the score chart. I actually had a game where the evil jester (the male one) was the highest on the score chart by far... but I've only had him in one game, so I don't know how much consistency there is to that. In that same game the Llorians... I think his name was Ulric... was pretty high up in the scores, too, at second place. Again, not sure of any consistency on that one.

 

[Tiarilir]

Faeryl Viconia (The Calabim Leader) Is quite ferocious with the ljosalfar.

I usually play either all AI slots random with unrestricted leaders, or random with unrestricted leaders and random personalities. You'll see some pretty insane combos, and some less good ones.

 

[CCA]

That's strange,

For me it's always the Good or Neutral civs that go anywhere, The evil civz just waste their production possibilities building hordes of units that never do anything

 

[JDexter]

Faeryl Viconia is the leader of the Svartalfar, not the Ljosalfar.

She has been very successful in my only longer game so far - a monstrous empire without waging war, which isn't supposed to be their strength.

 

[Tiarilir]

Faeryl Viconia is the leader of the Svartalfar, not the Ljosalfar.

She has been very successful in my only longer game so far - a monstrous empire without waging war, which isn't supposed to be their strength.

Oh, sorry there. I meant the leader of the Calabim, not Alexis but the other one. A little bit tired now in the morning.
And she was the leader of the Ljosalfar using unrestricted leaders, that's how she got ljosalfar.

 

[Ekolite]

The ai seems to play perpentach quite well which is interesting. I think the kuriotates usually do alright.

I saw the lurchip exploring with a wood golem in my last game, I dont know if they were using them to defend their cities or nt though.

In my next game im going to use the option to let the ai cheat and not have to build the buildings to make units. Should make for a more interesting game at least.

 

[Roghar]

I'm inclined to do the same, based on what I've read. Its a shame I was hoping Shadow would fix that problem

I do sometimes worry that the game is too specific and complex to ever have a good AI, which seeing as I never have the time for multi-player could ultimately spoil the game for me. I'm still in the happy phase of learning to play all of the different races, but after that if the opposition isn't smart and has to have lots of numerical boni to compete, it wouldn't be too much fun

Is it possible for players creating scenarios to specifically programme the AIs for opposition players. With some guidance as to how to act for a specific setting against specific opponents perhaps the AI would perform a lot better? (of course this makes building a scenario a huge amount of work, but lots of people here seem happy to spend that time!)

 

[Marksman77]

In my games Perpentach, Auric Ulvin and both Embers leaders were successful. Luichurp were almost always last pointwise.

 

[Tiarilir]

In my games Perpentach, Auric Ulvin and both Embers leaders were successful. Luichurp were almost always last pointwise.

I've also found that Auric Ulvin is often more succesful than before. It makes me happy, actually

 

[Skids]

Also seen Auric Ulvin very strong in most of my games. He seems to prefer being a builder of some sorts, often founding a religion or two, but never actually converting to one.

On top of that Elohim, Kuriotaes and Grigori do seem to do well, making me suspect that most builder civs have it good.

Elfs also tend to do quite well, but I suspect this is more because of the synergy they have with forests and leaves.

 

[Ekolite]

In my current game it is about turn 150 with 6 players. I'm at the top of the scoreboard then is the elohim and then the lurchip so I don't know if its tru that they always do bad, theres not buch between us really and ive only just taken 1st place scorewise. I suppose it is quite early on though.

I have yet to see the khazad do even reasonably well. Its a shame because in the hands of a person they can become extremly powerful. With overflowing vaults happiness is fine and they can get huge production. On tiny or small pangaeas it's easy for a conquest victory with them. I suppose the ideal map for them really is a tiny crowded pangea, rocky terrain. The other civs would have trouble expanding, but the kazad would be fine.

 

[Arwon]

Generally I find Flauros can be relied apon to give me a challenge.

What I've found strange is that Varn Gossam, formerly one of the better AI civs, suddenly sucks big time in Shadow.

 

[onedreamer]

The Alfar, Malakim and Hippus are the most challenging if played by the AI (IMHO).

 

[tharg]

The ai seems to play perpentach quite well which is interesting.

Makes sense. The AI does not play to its traits so the random third trait is much bigger than for a human player.

Edit:
Of course Ljosalfar on Boreal and Lanun on islands rock.

 

[marioflag]

Have to agree about Luchuirp they almost suck in all games, and also Sheaim, they always don't build the planar gate so don't take advantage of their peculiarities.