Who are the worst AI Leaders in the game?

[jpinard]

So far in my games certain leaders have been horrible in each and every game. Bismarck and Tokogawa are #1 & #2 in this respect. I'm going to make a little mod that gives crappy leaders a little bonus to help them gain parity with everyone else. I'd like to see a consensus on who everyone sees consitently ending up in the bottom of the pile. I listed them in order of general suckiness as I've seen in my games. Successful leaders aren't on the list.

Looking forward to seeing the results!

 

[obliterate]

I'd have to say Tokugawa. He just won't trade anything and that only cripples himself.

 

[Master Ray]

I say Tokugawa. He always is far behind in techs and wants to stay in isolation the whole game.

 

[lauralaura]

Toku, no question. He’s the most predictable AI ever – I’ve never seen him do anything else except turtle up, refuse to trade techs and resources, and become a ridiculous backwater by the middle of the renaissance, ready to be conquered by anyone. He doesn’t even fight wars of conquest!

Gandhi is a pushover, militarily, but if he manages to avoid early wars, he can become quite a technological powerhouse later in the game, so I wouldn’t count him in the same category as Toku. Likewise Monty, but in reverse – if he doesn’t succeed in carving out a massive empire by the end of the classical era, he falls so far behind in tech he ends up trying to beat back your rifles and cannon with axemen. But if he does amass a substantial empire early on (which he is capable of doing, sometimes), he is one scary guy.

 

[obliterate]

What's up with the poll percentages?

 

[Felix Luce]

Haha, 180%!

Anyway. Yes, Tokugawa. He once gave me a large city of his in exchange for a spare clam.

 

[jpinard]

What's up with the poll percentages?

Hehe. No idea. But people can select multiple leaders.

 

[renegadechicken]

Definitely Tokugawa. That guy consistently sucks it up, and while I like that the designers tried to flavor him with a realistic isolationist policy that pervaded Japanese society for much of history, it really cripples him (because unlike what really happened, he never makes a come-back!).

 

[BoydofZINJ]

Bismark crappy! NO WAY! When you want a strong end game type player with non Financial abilities... Bismark is on the tops.

Generally, creative and spirital abilities are on the bottom of my list. Financial is on the extreme top. Industrial and Expansive tend to be near the top as well.

However, leaders abilities are just HALF of the game. The other half is the civilization it self. I dislike very early zerg rushes. Incas with their warriors and granaries can just eat it. The English is a nice civilization because their units are mid to late game and they have a powerful bank building and most of the leaders have the financial ability as well. Vikings are a decent early to early mid civilization.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

^ This poll was about how AI plays.

Tokugawa & Sitting Bull tend to be last in score on my games (btw, according to BtS reference sheet SB never builds wonders .. which could help with his philosophical trait).

 

[jimbob27]

+1 for toku. He plays like an idiot and never does well.

 

[JustinianVII]

My vote's for Monty. Most of the games I play, he ends up somebody's vassal. Probably because he invests little in tech and a lot in soldiers, then proceeds to use them very stupidly.

 

[Navarre]

Toku, definitely the High Master of Suckiness. Monty, his faithful second, but at least he's alive and try to do something, even if he miserably fails 99% of the time. Toku just wastes perfectly good land for nothing, his empire is like some dead zone where nothing will happen ever. I've been playing this game for two years and I can remember only one game where he did actually achieve something, wipe the Mali out. My worst nightmare in this game is beginning a game isolated on a landmass with Toku : those are the dullest games I ever played.

 

[Tee Kay]

Isabella rarely become powerful in my game.

 

[magicalsushi]

^ This poll was about how AI plays.

Tokugawa & Sitting Bull tend to be last in score on my games (btw, according to BtS reference sheet SB never builds wonders .. which could help with his philosophical trait).

If the reference sheet indicates that Sitting Bull and Montezuma never, ever build wonders, it's wrong. They both have an "ooh shiny" factor of zero, but that doesn't mean they never build them at all, it just means they don't never give them special priority over other buildings. It's hard to explain the distinction, but essentially, they do build wonders, just not often.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

Oh Monty has that too as "never" (i remembered "rarely"). I was wondering if reference sheet really has that correctly, now i know it's at least misleading.

 

[TriviAl]

Tokugawa is terrifying in my current game. He gobbled up the Aztecs when they attacked him. Switched religions to the powerblock near him. Now turning into the runaway 500lb gorilla. Nice to see as he is normally a bit of a gimp.

 

[bonafide11]

Wow, Tokugawa is dominating this poll...

 

[Hawe Hawe]

If the map gives the civ good chances for development any leader/civ can become the strongest, but from average conditions there are weaker ones. I picked Toku (everything has been said, you know him), Bismarck and Saladin.
Bismarck to me seems too passive. He is no techer, but doesn't wage wars either, he doesn't go for religions, he doesn't expand peacefully and doesn't even go for cultural victories. I have never seen him as a leading civ in any aspect. And it is not only the late game UU and UB, Frederick does much better in my opinion.
Saladin is difficult: He is a religious fanatic like Isabel or Brennus, but the other ones go straight for their religions and spread them. Although Saladin starts with mysticism he rarely founds Buddhism or Hinduism, but often a later religion. He converts gets isolated and thats it. He is also a bad techer and bad warmonger.
Other weak AIs: Sitting Bull, Mao, Gilgamesch

 

[jpinard]

If the map gives the civ good chances for development any leader/civ can become the strongest, but from average conditions there are weaker ones. I picked Toku (everything has been said, you know him), Bismarck and Saladin.
Bismarck to me seems too passive. He is no techer, but doesn't wage wars either, he doesn't go for religions, he doesn't expand peacefully and doesn't even go for cultural victories. I have never seen him as a leading civ in any aspect. And it is not only the late game UU and UB, Frederick does much better in my opinion.
Saladin is difficult: He is a religious fanatic like Isabel or Brennus, but the other ones go straight for their religions and spread them. Although Saladin starts with mysticism he rarely founds Buddhism or Hinduism, but often a later religion. He converts gets isolated and thats it. He is also a bad techer and bad warmonger.
Other weak AIs: Sitting Bull, Mao, Gilgamesch

That's exactly what I've seen from Bismarck as well. Super passive and has a fear factor equivalent to Santa Claus. Gilgamesh on the other hand has always been a wicked competitor in my games.

So what would help Tokogawa out? I could make an extra trait, but if one plays a game with random assets this little "helper" trait would hurt anyone who inherits it. I also thought about changing the "unique building cost" - but if a civ isn't able t defend itself, that would just make a lot of good buildings for people to take over (or are unique buildings always destroyed when taking over a city?)