Worst AI Controlled Civ

[MadDjinn]

Monte - for being the 'mass war declaring even without a real army' sort of guy. He starts strong, even gets some iron once in a while for upgrades, but then DoWs himself to oblivion when someone finally decides to stomp him.

Ofc, what he's trying is the 'large army+gold = one sided peace treaty = larger army+more gold = ....' line of 'bully aggression', but if he runs into an AI close to him that can fight back, he' dead meat. But he'll still keep trying that aggression style.

The Iroquois are also bad. Not for the mass spam Mohawks/rapid expansion. They do that well. What they fail at (as an AI) is using the UA/UB. They'll chop every forest tile around, even when in the midst of a 20x20 forest patch.

Most of the rest are hit or miss on the map type or if they have the ability to use their Ux's, but those two stand out to me.

 

[NotSure]

They'll chop every forest tile around, even when in the midst of a 20x20 forest patch.

That never ceases to mystify me. I have seen the Iroquois go on some impressive rampages though.

Monte sucks. His twin brother Oda would be in the same boat if it weren't for Bushido.

 

[comatosedragon]

In all the games I have played, Egypt seems the most borked. They rarely if ever expand beyond 3 cities (many times staying at 1). It's like they are openly inviting you to use their UA and UB against them.

 

[MantaRevan]

In all the games I have played, Egypt seems the most borked. They rarely if ever expand beyond 3 cities (many times staying at 1). It's like they are openly inviting you to use their UA and UB against them.

Meh. They don't do terrible. They're no England or Spain.

 

[Optional]

The Iroquois are also bad.

Iroquois have been really good in my games. I haven't kept a close eye on what they've been doing improvement wise, but otherwise in my games they've been:
* expanding well
* not indulging in ludricous war declarations
* allying City States

That's sort of a 3-fold plan that would make any AI good.

Yeah, Aztecs are worst. They sin against at least 2 of those 3 points. I'm not sure I've ever seen Montezuma ally a CS. He normally just attacks them.
It makes a whole lot of difference whether an AI is systematically engaging itself with City States or not. The Greece's, Siam's, Persia's and Iroquois will normally be good if they have some money, because they will use it to buy City State influence, in addition to having a decent expansion themselves.

A human player will be much better with the Iroquois, of course. They can have an earlier and more deadly swordsman rush than anyone, that's not something for the AI.

I don't think there's any doubt that the Aztecs are the most suicidal AI of the pack. The number 2 place is more difficult. France can be terrible as well, high boldness, often attacking against the odds.
But another civ I've never seen doing well is the Danes. I haven't checked their flavours, but there often just a footnote in my games. Maybe Harald is waiting for some proper longships or something.

 

[MadDjinn]

Iroquois have been really good in my games. I haven't kept a close eye on what they've been doing improvement wise, but otherwise in my games they've been:
* expanding well
* not indulging in ludricous war declarations
* allying City States

That's sort of a 3-fold plan that would make any AI good.

Yeah, Aztecs are worst. They sin against at least 2 of those 3 points. I'm not sure I've ever seen Montezuma ally a CS. He normally just attacks them.
It makes a whole lot of difference whether an AI is systematically engaging itself with City States or not. The Greece's, Siam's, Persia's and Iroquois will normally be good if they have some money, because they will use it to buy City State influence, in addition to having a decent expansion themselves.

A human player will be much better with the Iroquois, of course. They can have an earlier and more deadly swordsman rush than anyone, that's not something for the AI.

the 'general' strategy of the AI as Hiawatha is 'ok'. It's the fail chopping of every single forest near them that makes them the worst AI due to killing both the UA and the UB.

You can't seriously suggest that any civ that purposely self-defeats two of three advantages is 'good' at playing that civ. (general strategies aside)

 

[Optional]

You can't seriously suggest that any civ that purposely self-defeats two of three advantages is 'good' at playing that civ. (general strategies aside)

Okay, yes, I'm with you then. I guess there's just nothing in the flavours that would prevent them from felling those woods.
All flavours refer to general strategy, if a specific aproach is needed to let an individual ability shine, then here's where the AI design falls short.

Some civs have the luck that no specific strategy is needed. Longer Golden Ages and +1 movement; a Persian AI is always going to benefit. Andean road; similar. Bushido; always okay.
In cases like Germany and Egypt the developers could do something with the flavours to suit the ability. They gave Egypt a higher love for wonders and without checking I'm assuming they gave Germany a higher interest in building military.

The Iroquois got a short straw, the developers haven't done anything to help them out. If this is your point, then yes, I agree. They could have done a better job here, the developers, even though their Warpath is one of the weakest unique abilities in the game in my opinion.