Why do they suck

[Longasc]

I cannot make a list of Civs I did not like to play, as I did not play those I consider really poor up to now, I did even decent with Portugal, but if there were suckers so far, they are close to.

But Civs that really suck are usually...

...

1.) AGGRESSIVE Civs.
Germany and the Mongols come to mind! Their aggressiviness rating makes for early wars, Germany has no early UU, even worse, and they either DO or DIE.

I usually have a weak Germany, an early destroyed Germany OR a German superpower. The same applies to the Celts, their chances to survive their high aggressiviness are better due to the Gallic and the Agricultural trait.

Check the Aggressiviness slider in the Editor, you come up with the following list:

Rome 4
Germany 5
(Sidenote: France 1, China 2)
Zulus 5
Mongols 5
Celts 4

The usually goo Persians have 4 aggressiviness, too. Their strength is that they have the IMMORTAL to go this aggressive way successfully - Rome's Legionaire is middle of the road, as is the Roman trait combo. I think that the MILITARISTIC Trait of Rome and Agr. Rating 4 nearly equal aggressiviness rating 5.

Ision already said some time ago, that this should not be overemphasized.

Still I come to the conclusion that HIGH AGGRESSION LEVELS make for highly unbalanced gameplay: Either they do great, or they descend into unimportantness or destruction soon.

 

[Longasc]

Furthermore, I think the AI hardly benefits from the militaristic trait, especially on high levels with high discounts, making militarist nations inherently weaker.

 

[Mescalhead]

The points on aggresion and success makes good sense.

 

[Charles 22]

Furthermore, I think the AI hardly benefits from the militaristic trait, especially on high levels with high discounts, making militarist nations inherently weaker.

I can't speak for the AI, but in my recent game as the Germans the military trait was indispensible. By the time I had got to the modern age I must've rung up like 40 military leaders due to so much heavy fighting with elites. On one turn I had either 3 or 4 of them pop up, of course using them judiciously on building rushes.

There's a method to making a killing off the military trait, as you learn such things as attacking with your elites (the non-starred ones) early in a turn so as to have more chances to spring up some more during the turn [IOW, if you use them after 90% of the fighting is done that turn you're not going to get many military leaders]). It's pretty funny to play that way, because due to upgrading and having so many that had already when to starred elite, it gets rather difficult to find an elite unit that is eligible to sprout a leader. You play the constant game of trying to get the veterans the easy victories, the non-starred elites to fight more difficult battles, and the expendable starred elites to fight the hardest fights.

 

[morchuflex]

Charles22,
(or anyone else)
When you upgrade a starred elite unit, is it able to produce a new leader? For instance, let's say an elite swordsman produces a leader. If I upgrade this unit to med. inf., will it be able to produce another one? Or shall I still consider it as "starred"?

 

[Mescalhead]

Well the experience status of the unit would revert to veteran. Though I am not sure on your question. But if a unit produces a leader can it no longer do so? That seems to be what you are implying. Why I don't know this...

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Don't overestimate the impact of the aggression level. A more important reason why any MIL Civ and especially Germany tend to commit suicide early on (like when trying to fight a Civ like Carthage or Greece) on the higher levels are the free units they start with:
Any MIL Civ (except Japan): Archers
Any SCI Civ (except Greece, but those get Hoplites): Spears
Any Civ that is neither SCI nor MIL starts with nothing but Warriors...
So, if you/other AIs refuse an early demand from Otto, he will declare not so much because of the agression level, but because he indeed is much stronger...
But since early wars are extremely ineffective for the AI, those wars most likely lead to nothing; by the time his Archers and Spears arrive, everyone has Spears and Swords.

 

[SanPellegrino]

I am still on Ptw, and in my games the industrious civs are usually the strongest, especially Persia with great UU. Rome gets usually the jungle or ice start, wonder why.

btw, to add some challenge I placed Monster civs far away from me on the map in the last games, to have a great endgame opponent which is otherwise not the case. e.g. Mongols with extra industrious trait, cheaper Keshiks coming with Horse Riding + Extra Cav UU later and a very nice starting location make one hell of a foe

 

[Arathorn]

When you upgrade a starred elite unit, is it able to produce a new leader?

Yes, it is. I've had units produce GLs while a horseman, knight, and then a third while cavalry. It's pretty rare, though.

Arathorn

 

[Tatran]

Am I the only one for whom AI Mayans seem to consistently suck? I can't for my life figure out why, since their traits are generally good for AIs, and their UU isn't bad.

Probably.
9 out of 10 games I end up fighting one of the
Agricultural civs.(Large maps + Archipilago)
This is becoming predictable and boring.

The most worse situation happened to me
when the Incas got a SGL after their first
reseached tech or free tech and rushed
the Pyramids.

 

[Charles 22]

Charles22,
(or anyone else)
When you upgrade a starred elite unit, is it able to produce a new leader? For instance, let's say an elite swordsman produces a leader. If I upgrade this unit to med. inf., will it be able to produce another one? Or shall I still consider it as "starred"?

As long as any unit has a star on it, it will not produce leaders, however, if it is upgrades it will lose it's star such that one unit can produce leaders a multiple of times, but, of course, once it reaches the zenith of it's class it cannot produce any more leaders (by zenith I mean something in it's last stage of developement [modern armor for example] which is in the starred status).

 

[FuTuREteCh]

Do you mean when the A.I. controls them? If so then:

In my games the Celts usually do pretty well.

The Romans always do horribly, as well as the Hittites. I haven't seen many games where the Aztecs, Carthaginians, Mongols, or English do well either.

The one's who always contend well are the Sumerians, Mayans, Indians, Zulu, Chinese, and the Iroquois.

I agree, but i think that carthage is great, its hard to defeat those libyan mercenary. And yes, the aztecs do horribly cuz they dont have a good special unit.