• We need to know your opinion about our social media accounts! Tell us here if you follow us on social media and what we could improve.

RFC: AI not willing to live up to their potential

Ghandi Khan

Warlord
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
106
I love this scenario, mostly for the added realism and attention to detail... but.. it seems to me like some of the AI players are a little TOO strict about confining themselves to their historical boundaries. I know this makes it a bit more historically accurate, but... I don't know, it also seems unrealistic that should a civ have a golden opportunity to take some very choice land that would be to their benefit they will pass it up almost every time.

The best example I have of this so far is from my two first vassal states in my game I am playing as the Persians. The Malinese and the Ethiopians, though I have heard similar things said about the Aztecs and their unwillingness to expand at all. Since they are my vassals I would like to see them do well and contribute something, but they are too limited by their unwillingness to help themselves.

Ethiopia is the worst offender. They have tons of great land all around them in Africa, which was more or less unoccupied until the Portuguese started showing up recently, but in stead of colonizing any of it they opted in stead to cram every city they possibly could onto the little strip of desert that juts out under the Red Sea. NO intelligent human player would EVER do this. I can understand maybe putting one city out there... but 3? All of them two spaces away from each other, draining their economy, thinning their military, and producing absolutely nothing of value. The Ethiopians would even have a decent chance of achieving their Historical Victory as the AI if they were able to think outside of the box just a little bit... but how are they going to repel European colonization of Africa if they don't do anything to take control of the land themselves?
 
Ethiopia is the worst offender. They have tons of great land all around them in Africa, which was more or less unoccupied until the Portuguese started showing up recently, but in stead of colonizing any of it they opted in stead to cram every city they possibly could onto the little strip of desert that juts out under the Red Sea. NO intelligent human player would EVER do this. I can understand maybe putting one city out there... but 3? All of them two spaces away from each other, draining their economy, thinning their military, and producing absolutely nothing of value. The Ethiopians would even have a decent chance of achieving their Historical Victory as the AI if they were able to think outside of the box just a little bit... but how are they going to repel European colonization of Africa if they don't do anything to take control of the land themselves?

With enough time and under the right circumstances they will expand. In the game I'm currently playing, they've extended their sway all the way down to the Cape of Good Hope.
 
With enough time and under the right circumstances they will expand. In the game I'm currently playing, they've extended their sway all the way down to the Cape of Good Hope.

Good to know. Guess they're just having rotten luck with barbarians or something in my game. Still... that 1 population city they built in the desert with no usable tiles 2 spaces away from 3 other cities just seems... dumb. =P oh well.

If a game doesn't play out exactly like history... and, say... some colonial power gets taken out early and never has the chance to build the empire it did in history... then other civs should be smart enough to move in and fill up the vacuum.
 
Have you played as either civ yet? Both are beset by the massive number of Barbs and Natives in Africa. Without a player's finesse in handling them, expansion is difficult.
 
Have you played as either civ yet? Both are beset by the massive number of Barbs and Natives in Africa. Without a player's finesse in handling them, expansion is difficult.

yeah, I have since played as the Ethiopians, and you're right, they are in a very difficult spot. I also think achieving their CV might be all but impossible since it's so hard to found a religion (am I missing something there? Is there some way to get a great propet to research Theology early?). I'll have to check out a strategy guide.

buuuuttt... they could do soo much better if they weren't building 3 or 4 cities in the Somali desert. Even with the Barbarians.

random thought: Why aren't the Zulu around? I would have put them in before the Ethiopians probably. I did notice that they are represented as independents.
 
yeah, I have since played as the Ethiopians, and you're right, they are in a very difficult spot. I also think achieving their CV might be all but impossible since it's so hard to found a religion (am I missing something there? Is there some way to get a great propet to research Theology early?). I'll have to check out a strategy guide.

buuuuttt... they could do soo much better if they weren't building 3 or 4 cities in the Somali desert. Even with the Barbarians.

random thought: Why aren't the Zulu around? I would have put them in before the Ethiopians probably. I did notice that they are represented as independents.
Yeah, Ethiopia has it hard. Founding a religion is really tough with them, and it may involve getting lucky with Egypt and rushing them. Or camping Arabia's spawn and wiping them before they settle Mecca(and thus found Islam.) The rest seems easy by comparison....

As for the Zulu, I suppose they aren't in because they weren't all that important. And they would spawn in, like, the 18th century with classical tech....
 
Yeah, Ethiopia has it hard. Founding a religion is really tough with them, and it may involve getting lucky with Egypt and rushing them. Or camping Arabia's spawn and wiping them before they settle Mecca(and thus found Islam.)

hm... that's a possibility I hadn't considered. Though I did take Egypt last time I played and it just compounded my problems because I had more barbarians to deal with, including camel archers, and my units weren't that good. Egypt had plague that didn't spread to me so I just marched in when their units were all dead, but some of those barbarian horse units beat me to the copper city in the NE. I've been focusing so far completely on researching as fast as possible and that doesn't work at all, a purely militaristic approach hadn't occurred to me, maybe I'll try that.
 
In my last game as Egypt, I had the Ethiopians for vassals, I got the peace event with natives, so they were able to expand easily. In my last game they were from Aksum to Almost the Cape. I was worried they would collapse, as eventually they gained Mecca and Aden in a congress. 5 turns later they overexpanded. I never left Egypt.
 
though I have heard similar things said about the Aztecs and their unwillingness to expand at all.

I don't know about other games, but in my RFC game, the Aztecs colonized a small part of Indonesia (Of course, after the Khmer turned into a civil war due to Mongolian attacks). I'm not sure exactly what they did. They either actually did settle there, or took one independent city, or asked for it in a congress that I wasn't focused on.
 
Aztec AI for me is always a wild card. Half the time Monty will just whine about everything and maybe pick on the Myans or Incans, the other half he's a full blown schizo that baths in blood. My last game playing as Toku, I was doing great and was on the way to achieving all my vc's, rolled into the begining of the IE and sent out some scouting vessels east ( I was severely challenged by everyone west of me, especially China) since I hadn't done that yet, and There was Monty sitting nice and pretty on Hawaii with a rather large stack of galleons and Frigs. Apparently he took over a rather large portion of North and South America. Was extremely scary.
 
Top Bottom