Who is the most aggressive leader?

[TheMeInTeam]

In a long career of building myself into a nice fat, inviting, pig for aggro slaughter, I can attest to the fact that Montezuma is a psychopath of the highest order. He seems to attack early on and no peace discussions last with any effect.

Ragnar is a close second.

I rarely butt heads with Shaka for some reason. I put him third.

Alexander attacks me even less, but when he does, he attacks at moments when I've built up militarily, and I whoop his ass (usually).

However, perhaps the most aggressive leader not mentioned so far is actually Isabella.

Izzy is INSTANTLY dealt with by running her religion though . Her buildunitprob isn't that high either, so unless she gets a lot of early cities with a strong spawn she's not that tough (and ANYBODY who gets a lot of cities is dangerous). More dangerous as a crazy zealot is Sury of Khmer, as his REX tendency can make him big with more consistency. Still, pretty much no zealot will attack you if you're in their religion unless you've declared on them repeatedly in the past.

Someone mentioned Joao as an "annoying leader", and I agree. Along with sitting bull, these two appear to be the game's "gimme" leaders. They'll ask you for stuff to death, regardless of how effective they are otherwise.

 

[Magma_Dragoon]

Shaka is aggressive to the point of retardation, attacking with a big stack of vastly inferior units. He attacked me once as Alexander with big stacks of cavalry and cannons while I had stealth bombers, IFVs, mobile art, and armor.

 

[azzaman333]

Izzy is INSTANTLY dealt with by running her religion though . Her buildunitprob isn't that high either, so unless she gets a lot of early cities with a strong spawn she's not that tough (and ANYBODY who gets a lot of cities is dangerous). More dangerous as a crazy zealot is Sury of Khmer, as his REX tendency can make him big with more consistency. Still, pretty much no zealot will attack you if you're in their religion unless you've declared on them repeatedly in the past.

Izzy is my favourite possible neighbour. She almost always founds one or more of the early 3 religions, and then spams out missionaries instead of expanding. So, I get my choice of taking all her land and making friends with her, or killing her while she's still with one city when I've built three or four.

Someone mentioned Joao as an "annoying leader", and I agree. Along with sitting bull, these two appear to be the game's "gimme" leaders. They'll ask you for stuff to death, regardless of how effective they are otherwise.

I agree with Joao and Sitting Bull being incredibly annoying. They both seem to REX quite a bit, and I've also noticed a lot of demands from them. Fortunately, I can normally ignore them, unlike Shaka or Ragnar, who just get mad and send their 5000 obsolete units at my border cities...

 

[skinrair]

Funny.. In my games Shaka's usually stuck in the bottom three Civs
And more often than not, ends up being my vassal

 

[Skell Jell]

Montezuma is aggressive also and can wipe you away and off the map.

 

[RasmCiv]

Or you've had your chips if it's actually Portugal. But literally, it's the Khan.
Genghis is SOOO annoying! He once declared war on me and I lost one of my cities. He's also so sneaky. I once got Defensive Pact with him, then he declared war on Julius Caesar and I had to as well, and I wasn't that advanced.

If you do a defencive pact with someone, none of the parts can drag each other into war

voted monty, but hannibal is quite aggressive too..

 

[bestbrian]

I voted Monty just out of shear aggression. However, as someone said earlier, he just seems to suicide himself against city walls and doesn't even pillage. Shaka is scarier for all the reasons previously mentioned.

I've got to add that the most effective AI I've come across is Napolean. The most effective sneak attacks I've ever sufferred were at his hands. His forces are usually large, tech appropriate, and take good advantage of weak points (instead of throwing dribbles and drabs of obsolete units at the best defended/garrisoned city, a la Monty)

 

[Mercenary82]

I'd have to say Shaka, the other three are better allies as long as you keep them busy by bribing them to attack others. Shaka is more dangerous since its harder to bribe him, so he's likely to come after you eventually. I usually will keep the others as attack dogs, but never Shaka, its best to kill him right away.

 

[Scaramanga]

Napoleon? He doesn't seem satisfied unless he's attacking someone.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Well, Monty is aggressive, but Shaka is scary. I give respect to Shaka and laugh at Monty's Knights vs. rifles, but I do admit he is good at the sneak attack

 

[Siesta Guru]

Id have to say the ai I moddeled after myself

Simply judging the variables, montezuma is the most aggressive leader. But hes far less dangerous then shaka who builds alot more military before declaring war.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Well Monty builds alot of military It's just hopelessly out of date because he has been DoW'ing everyone

 

[Raguzert]

Gengis Khan. He fights me every single game. Besides, he's the only A.I I never managed to deal a truce. At one game, we were at so much turns in war, that I fell far from everybody besides Khan, so I forfeit that game...

 

[Mad2rix]

NEVER TRUST MONTY!! (NOT MONTY BURNS as Mr. Burns from the Simpsons)
Shaka/Genghis Khan/Bismark are always on the verge of mad conquest in civ III.

 

[Kranden]

Montezuma

He once attacked me while fighting 2 other countries.

 

[ahmedhadzi]

I was playing on Prince, Continents, Standard.
Had Shaka, Alexandar, the Ethiopia guy and Williem as my neighbours. Did quecha rush on Shaka, so he was out of the game with only one city left. Spread Judaisam to all of them except Ethiopia, declared holy war. Got friendly with Alex, and then he attacked, me, rolled over my country before I could call for stop of the war with AP, my whole military was in Ethiopa. That bastard...

 

[Skell Jell]

If you do a defencive pact with someone, none of the parts can drag each other into war

voted monty, but hannibal is quite aggressive too..

I guess so.

 

[Kranden]

If you do a defencive pact with someone, none of the parts can drag each other into war

voted monty, but hannibal is quite aggressive too..

Hannibal is aggressive but not stupid aggressive like monty. I find if he is your friend he can make a valuable war ally as he builds lots of units and rarely stabs you in the back. If monty is your war ally well... you better hope you have lots of units at the end of the war

 

[Iranon]

I find Shaka is quite dangerous once he gets going, possibly because of his UB (although if I understand the mechanics correctly it shouldn't matter too much for an AI). I usually make it my business to put him in his place early on to avoid him becoming a nuisance.

On the other hand, he can safely be ignored if he's behind, unlike Ragnar (whom I am missing in this poll). Ragnar will attack when vastly outclassed and builds enough units to be a threat even when his war is economic suicide.

Another leader worthy of mention: Boudica. Mostly because you can't sic her on someone else easily. If you get her mad, she's a threat for a long time while you can throw Monty a bone and have him butt heads with someone else (which will usually drag both parties down)

 

[Fezfez]

I voted for Alexander. I nearly always get into a war with this guy. For some reason shaka is pretty friendly to me. Monty is also pretty agressive but less so. For some reason Im also allways at war with Louis XIV.