• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

Which leader is handled better by AI

It seems that regardless of uniques, civs with a high expansionist flavor tend to do well in the hands of the AI. Because more cities is always better for the AI, what with their extra happiness and city bonuses. It can even outweigh having uniques that are not the best (America and the Iroquois for example).
 
IMHO, Bismarck and Dido... they tend to grow very solid in my single players. Boudicca always starts well too, but screws up before the medieval era.
 
What amuses me is that there are so many radical differences in the AI play-stiles from game to game (as it should be).

For example my fellow countryman and OP, says that Harun is peaceful and doesn't do so good (and I Dont doubt it that he does in his experience).

However in my games Harun always is the one consume his neighbors and create a vast empire with thousands of gold and be a very good candidate for dom or science victory. What he cant grasp it seems is naval warfare.

Perhaps the AI is not a lost cause as we seem to think?

IMHO, Bismarck and Dido... they tend to grow very solid in my single players. Boudicca always starts well too, but screws up before the medieval era.

Brismarck and Dido. Every time I see them they exchange roles. Bismarck fills the waterways with battleships and careers and Dido spams tanks like crazy...There must be some error in their code :D
 
Basically, what Ixias just wrote. I just want to add my experience of Harun in my last games, where I played as a warmonger. In both games he both took a gigantic tech lead:c5science: (eg. 67 techs to 47 me/AI), conquered aggresively :c5razing:, built Apollo, had 100+ City defenses :c5strength:, Thus in both games I was fighting him with Worldwar Infantry or even Riflemen, Cavalry, Frigates and Artillery, whereas his army had Modern Infantry, tanks, planes, Battle Ships and rocket artillery. Not to forget that he DID have more soldiers on demographic screen. I won both wars though, because he was too stupid to throw everything he got at me (and that's a showcase example of how bad AI leads military). Geez, in one game HE HAD A PLUCKING CONTINENT for himself! And I conquered hist coastal town because I've cleaned a sea corridor from me to him with five frigates, beating two battleships on the way, while his other five or so battleships just watched!
 
Any agressive city spammers far from you or on another continent can do really well. I do usually play on large to huge maps which helps them. What is fun is to retry a good map and watch how different AIs do well or poorly, from match to match. Germany is a good example of this since he can really take off or get pummeled, though 2/3rds of the time he is getting big.
 
Any agressive city spammers far from you or on another continent can do really well. I do usually play on large to huge maps which helps them. What is fun is to retry a good map and watch how different AIs do well or poorly, from match to match. Germany is a good example of this since he can really take off or get pummeled, though 2/3rds of the time he is getting big.

I was doing the "replay" as a learning method when I first got in my hands CIV5 (vanilla). I have some pretty accurate statistics on that, but they are of course not exactly the same in GnK - one big and obvious difference is Harun: in vanilla he only got this crater for his desert (and maybe some oil if he was allowed to see modern times), while now a Petra start is more than quite good, with the salt.

I especially remember one of my first attempts on Emperor, that I replayed 5 times (improving myself all the time, and learning the basic mechanisms). The important part was the duel Monty-Suleiman in a continent: the result was 4-1 in favor of Suleiman. Which seems very normal to me.
 
What amuses me is that there are so many radical differences in the AI play-stiles from game to game (as it should be).

Very true. In my games most consistent runaway is Hiawatha. Second is Alexander. Third I'd give to Napolean.
 
Oda Nabunaga's UA makes the AI's suicidal tactics several degrees more deadly.
 
This is in my experience:

Best AI leader: Korea; this AI actually has the correct flavor settings for a peaceful science victory. (Along with a UA so easy to use, even a caveman AI can use it.) I only see it have problems if it runs into a war mongling AI too early.

Second best AI leader: That's Persia. Good at both conquering and using the conquests to get further along in science.

Worst AI leader: Aztecs: Is often still in the Modern era when the most advanced AI reaches the Information era.

And (dis)honorable mention to Catherine. She has a very low happiness flavor combined with a very high expansion flavor. It's so bad she can actually have happiness problems even on the default Chieftain settings the AI plays at if the human isn't playing on Immortal+ to give the AIs an even larger happiness bonus.
 
OK, now I have an opinion about some more leaders:

Harun: He is really treated correctly, he goes for Liberty/Tradition/Rationalism which is an excellent way to go, but somehow mistreats the ending, especially when he gets a DoW by some other AI. He is not focusing on wonders, but maybe way too much (especially the mid/late game wonders are really useful if you are not in a war, and you are not planning to be in one). Most probably in most games he will do ok or very well. One disadvantage is that he will mostly use his spies for CS revolts, which is pathetic as it allows for easy stealing at the catch-up phase.

Alex: That is a model of pathetic treatment. OK, the Honor I can understand (although it is a bad play, Liberty should be better), then probably correctly goes for Patronage to kill all other aliances, but then he goes for Piety!!!! Amazingly pathetic play, would need a huge boost from the initial wars to get him going if his choices are such. Aggressive on spying, which can be bad since if he is the leader he should resort to counter-espionage.

China: Here we have a civ crippled by the choices of the programmers. Neglects improving the land and stays behind, unless some miracle happens early. Very bad handling (but didn't live long to see more).

Sweden: Mr. Adolf(us) should learn not to crash all his army on a CS, to start with. Completely harmless I think, and bad choices of policies as well. Plus, he is too picky and loses the chance of RAs.

Attila: Now, this is strange. I think he is the most trustworthy ally IF you don't have common borders. But he tries to steal techs even from best friends. But will DoW too often, without result - and this is bad.

Washington: Another mishandled leader, with a mixture of bad policies and the catastrophic tendency to attack CSs. I doubt he does well in general.

And a few words about Byzantium (without Theodora), which was my choice to play. I think that Byzantium has a huge potential for early warmongering, both at land and at sea. This Cataphract is really a dangerous killer that can also be used for taking cities (I didn't build a single melee unit at the early phase, and conquered easily a continent) - but, at immortal, to get it going I had to neglect a bit the well known path to NC and go first for Horseback Riding. If you also happen to get an early religion you have a very comfortable game. I wish I knew how AI handles Byzantium, but I fear it will again be a case of mishandling, neglecting Rationalism at the end.
 
Sweden: Mr. Adolf(us) should learn not to crash all his army on a CS, to start with. Completely harmless I think, and bad choices of policies as well. Plus, he is too picky and loses the chance of RAs.

Well Adolphus managed to become a runaway in my current game (king). He has a huge list of wonders in his capital. We were allied and I was a bottom feeder due to some mismanagement on my part at the start the fact that he had no enemies. Then he got into the time frame where he started spamming cities. Still first in science, pop, culture and army. I had to DoW him and though I managed to reduce him to Stockholm and another city, I cant seem to capture the damn thing. He keeps spamming Karolinas (Carolines? Those Sweden infantry with a chics name :lol: whatever)...He is boxed up in a mountain and hills as if he was Incas and its the first time I see the AI use his units in a rotation pattern (remove the first rank to heal replace with fresh troops, rotate again). And to top it all he has the Kremlin....If bombers dont get him I dunno what will.

Certainly I have some newfound respect for the bugger.
 
Well Adolphus managed to become a runaway in my current game (king). He has a huge list of wonders in his capital. We were allied and I was a bottom feeder due to some mismanagement on my part at the start the fact that he had no enemies. Then he got into the time frame where he started spamming cities. Still first in science, pop, culture and army. I had to DoW him and though I managed to reduce him to Stockholm and another city, I cant seem to capture the damn thing. He keeps spamming Karolinas (Carolines? Those Sweden infantry with a chics name :lol: whatever)...He is boxed up in a mountain and hills as if he was Incas and its the first time I see the AI use his units in a rotation pattern (remove the first rank to heal replace with fresh troops, rotate again). And to top it all he has the Kremlin....If bombers dont get him I dunno what will.

Certainly I have some newfound respect for the bugger.

When I will see him doing something even remotely clever I will possibly reconsider. What I saw was a completely idiotic attack on a CS, that had Riflemen and Cannons and he had some pikes and knights. To make things worse, the passage to the CS was ONE TILE long, which means he had tons of units waiting behind the line to go and get slaughtered one by one. He did transfer occasionally a few units through the sea, but they were too few too late - plus he had no siege units of any kinds nor navy.

In short, I saw something I hadn't seen before - a civ pledging for peace against a CS. I was the ally of that particular CS and could easily ask him to make peace if I wanted to, but seeing this massacre I let him continue. I was counting the casualties: Cs: 1 rifleman they stupidly (as usual) pushed onto the wall of enemy units, inside range of some crossbowmen; Adolfus: 15 pikes and 4 crossbowmen.

It was amusing because it reminded me of "Hotgates" - the small passage where numbers count for nothing...
 
It was amusing because it reminded me of "Hotgates" - the small passage where numbers count for nothing...

Hotgates? :lol: Its called Thermopile. You can translate it as hotgates I assume :)

As to the rest. Well he Did attack one of my allied city states as well, got clobbered two times, but after loosing half an army he brought four tribuchets and finally took it. Was the second part of the reason I dowed him. Not the best AI by far but at least he uses his uniques well. To me it was the most grueling war I had in CiV.

EDIT: Just saw that you too are from Greece...There goes the names lesson :lol:
 
Hotgates? :lol: Its called Thermopile. You can translate it as hotgates I assume :)

As to the rest. Well he Did attack one of my allied city states as well, got clobbered two times, but after loosing half an army he brought four tribuchets and finally took it. Was the second part of the reason I dowed him. Not the best AI by far but at least he uses his uniques well. To me it was the most grueling war I had in CiV.

EDIT: Just saw that you too are from Greece...There goes the names lesson :lol:

LOL. Plus you obviously haven't seen the 300 movie :).
 
Had to chip in on a couple...
Darius is a technical yes in that the AI attempts to use his bonuses as much as possible but a realistic failure because from what i have seen the AI will always declare war upon gaining golden age but usually gets crushed upon doing so (chooses a bad opponent (usually whoever is just nearest)).

Cathy can be a monster if given any form of space. If you don't slap her down hard, fast and early she will overrun everything with all her uniques.
 
Had to chip in on a couple...

Cathy can be a monster if given any form of space. If you don't slap her down hard, fast and early she will overrun everything with all her uniques.

And settle every rock that can lay her grubby fingers upon. One tile island in the middle of the ocean? Yes please!
 
My list would probably be:
1) Hiawatha
2) Alex
3) Napoleon
4) Catherine
5) Darius

The AI with high expansion flavors are the best AI players. UA/UU/UB don't really matter because the AI can't utilize them effectively anyways.
 
Cathy can be extremely tough IF things get along to her from the start, since she goes for three of the probably best trees - Liberty for fast expansion, Patronage for CS, and Rationalism for science. But her completely ICS policy has a serious side effect - she might even fail to complete 2 of the three branches. Secondly, she neglects religion (in my last game she founded a pantheon in 1100 AD!!!) and her culture output was simply bad (maybe she overlooks it since it is not strictly necessary for growing her cities). All these left her in an one-way path to victory: war at around 1600 with her Cossacks - if that succeeds she might get along, otherwise it is doom. Aggressive spying and also cunning strategy was the surprise to me - she even bribed Siam who had a DoF with me to declare war against me - well done and correct. If only she understood that one-tile wide passages on hills are not the best method to try for transfering an army...

Siam now is extremely solid: Tradition for extra food, coupled with his UA this gives huges cities. Then full Patronage, trying to consolidate alliances with CS - up to now everything is almost perfectly done. If as last step there was Rationalism instead of Order, I would say this is the toughest civ to face - apart from the solid start, with mild expansion, Siam goes also for some (but not too many) wonders, and will kick some butts with those unstoppable knights-elephants (in my game it was Attila who was slaughtered). Thus they had a vast empire with a solid base, tons of food, and a good plan - but then disaster strikes in the form of Order. Maybe there were happiness problems due to overpopulation, but still...

Just a side remark on the criteria AI uses to declare war. As is well known, the most important is the military power - this is normal and seems obvious, but it is incorrect both in civ and in reality. Current military is one serious parameter, but technology AND money are a second, more important parameter. In my game I got (intentionally) a DoW since it was around 1600-1700 AD and I hadn't upgraded at all my army from the age of crossbowmen. I would never do that in MP, but against AI it is safe IF your land is far away and you have good patrols. But, although at the time of DoW I had only some crossbowmen, at the moment of kind of contact the Cossacks were facing tanks, artillery, and infantry, since I was far ahead and I had around 9000 gold to dispose (plus two reserve great artists from Louvre, for extra golden ages). But I don't know how easily they could change this formula, because in the current format it only covers the possibility for a successful blitz if there is close contact. If in the position of Cathy there was a human player, he would understand that this attack is doomed if there were not some huge results at the very start.
 
Obviously, this is a combination of good UU/UA/UB, selection of policies, and leader general style when handled by the AI. To give an example, I have yet to see China or Arabia getting really strong, although they are arguably among the best civs to play, while I consistently see Germany getting strong, or even more Siam and Byzantines.

China, Arabia, and Mongolia are very strong in the hands of the player due to their ranged UU. Unfortunately, the AI does not have a full mastering of ranged combat, so it's not going to do as well with them.

The AI is pretty sucky at diplomacy (with the player and with each other), so it's not going to benefit as much from the trading opportunities that Arabia and the Netherlands have.

The AI also does not have a good handle on religion, often taking terrible combinations of beliefs. AI Theodora might do okay with the two early UU's, but I have NEVER seen the AI use her UA well. Heck, I have NEVER seen the AI choose a sufficiently respectable religion that I (a human player) would consider!

It seems logical that the AI is going to do best with "easy to pilot" civilizations which doesn't require much thinking. Greece, Germany, France, and the Iroquois are all pretty straightforward. Also Persia. On Deity level games, I tend to find Persia to be the biggest problem due to the insane happiness bonuses that the AI gets (easy for them to get Golden Ages) and how overpowered Pikemen are in G&K. Persia builds lots of Immortals (who keep double healing when promoted) and prioritizes Civil Service (providing both Pikemen *and* Chichen Itza) so Persia is easy to play and plays to the AI advantages.


yeah he does. he chops like mad too so his starting bias are of double value. He's a very likely runaway. Actually, I believe only two factors count when you think about how well the AI will do. Does it spam cities? and Does it conquer city-states? I'm sure 80% runaways are yes-no.

From my experience, the significant majority of runaways go the Liberty route. Tradition is a very distant second. And Honor isn't even in the race. Honor civs usually build a massive early army. Occasionally they manage to take some cities early on but most of the time, they sit there with their giant army and one city until they are out teched by the Liberty and Tradition civs.

On a similar note, civs that I see the AI does extremely poorly include Denmark and especially the Aztecs. Montezuma is so over the top aggressive that he spends most of the early game building Jaguars but ends up picking too many fights and dying. Denmark tends to do pretty poorly as well but probably because the AI can't understand how to use Denmark's awesome UA well. Being able to move/attack after disembarking (and keeping your extra movement points) is insanely good. Free pillage was okay when the game first came out, but is now very strong since they changed pillaging to provide limited healing. So Denmark should be pillaging everything in sight, which it does not do.

Just a side remark on the criteria AI uses to declare war. As is well known, the most important is the military power - this is normal and seems obvious, but it is incorrect both in civ and in reality. Current military is one serious parameter, but technology AND money are a second, more important parameter.

According to the code, money is a factor (but not as major as current military strength).

But in practice, I have often baited a civ into attacking me by maintaining an obsolete army, which I upgrade as soon as he starts the war!
 
Top Bottom