So I'm finally winning on Monarch, but...

[VinceV]

...I have to deliberately pick weak opponents! In this last game, I was Hatshepsut--who is above average, but not great, on an Archipelago map. I choose for my opponents:

Saladin
Pacal (who is a major tech threat; he's just an idiot at war)
Alexander
Shaka
Stalin
Tokugawa
Charlemagne
Sitting Bull


Yes, I aimed for the pushovers...but it's either this or play on Prince and go against Hannibal, Napoleon, Victoria, Louis, Asoka et cetera...

I play a peaceful game, usually.

 

[Ataxerxes]

Uh, is Shaka a pushover? I hadn't noticed. He always does pretty good in my games. Also, I wouldn't think a game with him would be THAT peaceful. He isn't Monty, but then, who is?

Also, I don't think Louis is dangerous. He usually builds wonders and then waits for you to take them from him. The main danger in a game you're peaceful in is that some non-peaceful opponent will take his wonders.

 

[Nilmerf]

I love when I roll Louis next to me. Let him live long enough to build some useful wonders and then take them. Of the ones you've picked, Shaka, Pacal, and Charlemagne tend to do well as the AI. Just go random and you won't notice much difference. Napoleon, Shaka, and Ragnar are the most dangerous in my eyes. Gilgamesh and Sitting Bull are annoying.

 

[obsolete]

I was Hatshepsut-

She got nerfed pretty bad in BtS, so did every spiritual leader in fact. This is possibly a small contributing factor.

 

[Zeusophobia]

In my opinion most of the civilizations you picked are not pushovers Shaka must have a personal grudge against me, he always finds a way to declare war on me regardless. I suppose if you're going for a peaceful win...but even then, Charlemagne can be a nuisance. I would have gone for -

Joao II
Suleiman
Sitting Bull (he gets on my nerves though)
Tokugawa
Gandhi
Washington
Louis XIV
Saladin

 

[VinceV]

Well, Shaka as an immediate neighbour is a problem, but because he favours production, he will build workshops instead of cottages so he lags way behind in tech. Ditto for Stalin, prefers workshops to cottages, which is a double whammy: less food and all that lost coins.

Pacal was tough, but he cannot do war. Charlemagne and I shared an island, and I rolled over him with maybe 8 macemen and three catapults. He's not one to switch to slavery and start whipping out extra defenders. His traits are probably the worst combo as well.

Alexander should be stronger; he built the Great LIghthouse and founded Christianity, but he doesn't expand well, and makes lots of threats about wars but doesn't always follow through.

Tokugawa (who I actually had open borders with at one time!) of course won't trade techs so he falls way behind-unless we sell techs to him.

Ghandi I find deadly if he is left alone...I probably play a lot like him, but I know how to do a war when the time comes.

Edit: On Pacal, he was well into Future Tech before I was, but I got my spaceship built before him by about 10-15 turns. It was helpful to have Mining Inc. and its additional 12 hammers, as well as the Three Gorges Dam, but I think he is a weak space builder as well--and he looks ridiculous!

 

[Orzio]

She got nerfed pretty bad in BtS, so did every spiritual leader in fact. This is possibly a small contributing factor.

Still got a very strong UU.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

She got nerfed pretty bad in BtS, so did every spiritual leader in fact. This is possibly a small contributing factor.

It was an indirect nerfing (relative). Although I doubt someone playing arch and picking shaka as a "pushover" is suffering the relative weakening of SPI thanks to golden ages.

It's an interesting choice for arch to be sure though. I would def prefer a lot of other leaders on that map script.

 

[Sisiutil]

Uh, is Shaka a pushover? I hadn't noticed. He always does pretty good in my games. Also, I wouldn't think a game with him would be THAT peaceful. He isn't Monty, but then, who is?

Shaka is dangerous if you start next door to him, a pushover if he's far away. As mentioned above, he seriously lags in tech as the game progresses (similar to Sitting Bull, Montezuma, and Tokugawa). He'll still declare war and throw hordes of Horse Archers at your Infantry, though...

 

[TheMeInTeam]

High level shaka is no joke. I wouldn't be surprised if he took more victories away from players spawning close OR far than any other leader in the game.

 

[Lone Wolf]

The game lacks tech-whoring warmongering AI personalities.

 

[Sisiutil]

High level shaka is no joke. I wouldn't be surprised if he took more victories away from players spawning close OR far than any other leader in the game.

Really? I've never found him challenging in the late game. As I said, he seriously lags behind in techs. Then again, I've been playing with random personalities lately, so maybe Shaka has challenged me without my knowing it!

The game lacks tech-whoring warmongering AI personalities.

That's probably because it's difficult to balance those two goals. I do it as a human, but not successfully every time, and I have to take a long, long-term view when my economy is hitting the skids in the middle of a long war of conquest. I'm not sure if the AI is (or even can be) programmed to set and stick to long-term goals; my understanding is that the AI makes a new set of decisions every turn.

 

[Sian]

if Shaka gets rolling capturing left and right he certainly is a beast

 

[Lyoncet]

That's probably because it's difficult to balance those two goals. I do it as a human, but not successfully every time, and I have to take a long, long-term view when my economy is hitting the skids in the middle of a long war of conquest. I'm not sure if the AI is (or even can be) programmed to set and stick to long-term goals; my understanding is that the AI makes a new set of decisions every turn.

Well, warmongers seem to be defined by three things in Civ IV: they usually have poor tech, they usually have lots of units, and they always attack frequently. You could switch the first two (good tech but few units) and if they attack frequently or with little provocation, they'll still be a warmonger.

Maybe someone could tweak Darius's peaceweight or something and see what happens.


My list of pushover AI (for various reasons):

Isabella: just take her religion if you're on the same continent, or free religion if you're not and watch the other religions beat the snot out of her
Mansa Musa: everybody ALWAYS hates him (I don't know why – could be worst enemy tech trades), and his UnitProb is 25, which is the second lowest tier (unless you count Gandhi's 15), so he gets steamrolled despite his tech
Churchill: sucks fighting him, but he doesn't seem to do too well in general except for during the reign of the redcoats
Tokugawa: he's a total isolationist, so he almost always sucks. Backwards tech, poor cities and commerce, usually just sits big stacks in his cities. Pretty annoying, but not much of a threat (usually)
Sitting Bull: got treated almost as badly in Civ as he did in real life, but arg the spies!
Gandhi: find him and kill him, or bribe someone into killing him. 15 unit prob and nice, juicy cities. Sometimes he has powerful friends though, or more likely a powerful master
Genghis Khan: VERY risky, but whereas some warmongers get good early starts by capturing some nearby enemies, Genghis has a 75% chance to raze captured cities, so unless he starts right by you, even if he has a powerful military, he won't actually start gaining from his exploits until Feudalism. Seems that his power is directly proportional to the map size

 

[kochman]

...I have to deliberately pick weak opponents! In this last game, I was Hatshepsut--who is above average, but not great, on an Archipelago map. I choose for my opponents:

Saladin
Pacal (who is a major tech threat; he's just an idiot at war)
Alexander
Shaka
Stalin
Tokugawa
Charlemagne
Sitting Bull


Yes, I aimed for the pushovers...but it's either this or play on Prince and go against Hannibal, Napoleon, Victoria, Louis, Asoka et cetera...

I play a peaceful game, usually.

Is there a question here?
Or are you just updating us on your playing?
I don't get the point of this post... most seemed to have decided it was a thread to talk about the leaders you picked.
Just keep playing until you don't have to pick... and start this trend by not picking.
Every leader has there weakness, some are just more obvious than others.

 

[Lone Wolf]

That's probably because it's difficult to balance those two goals. I do it as a human, but not successfully every time, and I have to take a long, long-term view when my economy is hitting the skids in the middle of a long war of conquest. I'm not sure if the AI is (or even can be) programmed to set and stick to long-term goals; my understanding is that the AI makes a new set of decisions every turn.

Not necessary. Just do an AI which builds units, has WarRands etc. like Shaka, but who trades techs like Mansa Musa. See TMIT's Runaway AI. I said "tech-whoring", not "economy focused".

. You could switch the first two (good tech but few units) and if they attack frequently or with little provocation, they'll still be a warmonger.

There are other ways. Notice that most warmongers have low NoTradeTechTresholds and TechTrade KnownPercents. Bringing them up to Mansaish levels without changing everything else should result in tech level increase.

Maybe someone could tweak Darius's peaceweight

PeaceWeight doesn't control AI's willingness to go to war - it's just a relationship factor.

 

[Lyoncet]

PeaceWeight doesn't control AI's willingness to go to war - it's just a relationship factor.

Right; meant WarRand.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Right; meant WarRand.

Better to do like I said and make the warmongers trade techs like Mansa. (20 threshold, 0 knownpercent, 1 turn diplomacy delay between tech requests (forgot the exact name of the parameter).

The closest to a moderately effective warmonger with a low UnitBuildProb (25) is Catherine. She has no no honor, reasonably willing to trade techs and is creative.