worst (and best) leaders for players

[lymond]

You know we may just be ignoring the fact that maybe protective is in the game as an AI favoring trait to balance play. Protective civs early are super hard to conquer and really limit the player. Sitting bull is one of those civs I reroll if he's next to me.

Well, not sure if anyone knows what the devs were thinking with Protective, but what you stated is something that actually has been discussed quite a bit in the past.

 

[ArchGhost]

That's not why sitting bull is good as an AI- he's good cus he has one of the highest unit build rates in the entire game and the protective trait means he's hard for to take out, so the other warmongers like monty, shaka and mehmed can't conquer him usually. Ok so yes protective matters for him as an AI, but as a player it's not very good.

Not really used to this new forum style, couldn't get my quote in here try as I might.

Not sure why you would single out only PRO when I was pointing out 4 reasons he can be a challenge in a defensive position. This kind of direct bias against it is exactly why PRO is considered so mediocre by the player-determined metagame...despite the fact that I was trying to demonstrate, for him, it's more than relevant and powerful in a defensive application because it combines with his other unique advanatages.

Sitting Bull's defensive strength is due to a combination of PRO, the Totem Pole, he can tech off of PHI alone, and guaranteed non-metal axes that counter other axes, not just the trait. Unit prob only cements that, since each each of his archery units is tougher and he will build dogs as they are his UU. It really only counts until the other AIs (or you) start massing siege anyway, so it is most definitely is the reason he hangs on for so long, since a defensive buffer is an early game advantage.

My point was that a player doing the same thing he does could do it better, like most of anything the AIs do where their bonuses don't cheat for them, and it's amazing how strong it could be when not building superfluous spies and running 20% ep slider all game, not randomly shuffling around their citizens from turn to turn, etc...not that just having the PRO trait is good for a player.

He's probably the only example of the PRO leaders that can actually work in practice the same way as in theory, using PRO+UB+UU to stay alive and PHI to tech while not really needing much developed land.

I'm not really trying to fanboy that hard for him or anything, I just found him to be pretty much the only decent PRO leader if you don't count rushing Cho-ko-nus with Qin, who doesn't need to be PRO, that's just incidental. PRO largely seems a waste on most of the others except SB and Toku because it's a trait that that normally gains no synergy from the leader/civ and is counter-intuitive to how many players want to/should play. No growth or econ benefits doesn't help that trait's case.

Well, not sure if anyone knows what the devs were thinking with Protective, but what you stated is something that actually has been discussed quite a bit in the past.

Yeah, I don't really like the PRO trait but there seems to be no doubt it seems to spark discussion fpr one reason or another, theorycrafting or preference etc etc.. Like my whole rant above ^^ lol.

 

[lymond]

Sitting Bull is actually a poor AI. He can survive a long time due to his defenses though, and his resist capping is highest of all. But for whatever reason, I find he is a rather poor techer. Not sure the coding, but it may have something to do with his flavor. Plus, probably a good bit to do with most AIs not liking him, and the fact that he often finds himself on the bad end of wars - surviving but getting stone aged at the same time. He's also not very aggressive at all so he just kinda sits there all game doing nothing and losing out on a lot of trade routes. As an AI, he's really not built to win the game

 

[Windsor]

Sitting Bull is actually a poor AI. He can survive a long time due to his defenses though, and his resist capping is highest of all. But for whatever reason, I find he is a rather poor techer.

He spends too much on espionage and he doesn't like to trade techs. Of course, constantly fighting Shaka and Monty doesn't help either.

 

[civvver]

Yeah I mean it's pretty obvious why he's a poor techer as an AI, he builds a ton of units rather than infrastructure, and yes spends on espionage, is always fighting etc. For a player building lots of buildings is bad cus it's not as efficient as building wealth or units to take more cities, but for an AI who will never build wealth or use those units right, building libraries and markets in every city is probably the best bet.

Plus if you look at all the AIs who are good at tech they fall into two categories- ones with economic traits, mostly financial (like mansa and pacal), who are willing to tech trade a lot, and ones who build huge sprawling empires (like catherine and sury).

Anyway, I'm completely stomping my last mehmed game. When it's done I'm going to try some of the harder leaders, thinking of starting with Charles, then maybe toku.

 

[lymond]

..and the best AI - Justinian

 

[Fippy]

Yup that's a big factor in AI strength, how soon are they reaching wfyabta.
SB stops trading after 8 techs already, he can do well in games where he starts winning wars (good unit spam and defense) but overall he has not much that helps him reaching any victory condition.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Best AIs I usually find to be creative ones like Zara Yaqob, Gilgamesh or Wilem Van Orange (though army is a bit small). The AI sucks at placing cities, so this really helps them out. Of course the ones that also go for Liberalism like Wilem or Darius are an incredible pain. They're also trading aggressively.

Worst AIs tend to be industrious or AIs with a cultural bent because they focus on building wonders and end up with very few cities. Especially Roosevelt. I don't even know what he does most of the time.

Although usually the biggest loser is Tokugawa since he refuses to do anything with anyone.

 

[civvver]

Yup that's a big factor in AI strength, how soon are they reaching wfyabta.
SB stops trading after 8 techs already, he can do well in games where he starts winning wars (good unit spam and defense) but overall he has not much that helps him reaching any victory condition.

Do AIs stop trading with each other as well with the same limitations? That would be a huge game changer.

As far as which leaders are best for AIs, it's all extremely map dependent. Sure there are those that are consistently bad and those that are consistently decent, but like pacal and mansa can completely run away with a game if they have a nearby gold or gems and aren't near any warmongers, but place them in between like shaka and ragnar and they will capitulate so quickly.

Guys that seem to always do decent to me are the aggressive civs but not overly aggressive who expand well like catherine and mehmed. They build strong armies but without going crazy like shaka and monty, and they don't neglect tech and expansion for it.

The worst AIs always left behind in tech are toku and monty for sure, and shaka is close behind but he's a better warmonger so he may have some tech vassals to keep him afloat.

 

[Fippy]

The best AIs are usually those with middle peaceweight (not hated by warmongers or very peaceful ones).
Zara, Justi or Willy are good examples. Those are also favored by their good teching, and they usually happily trade with other AIs.

I think AIs also stop trading with each other at the limit, yup.
But some are more likely to reach friendly than others, and at friendly there are very few limits.

 

[lymond]

Yep, that peaceweight thing is a big factor, which makes Justy and Zara so strong. Also, Imperialistic leaders tend to do very well in general. Cyrus seems to do quite well. Joao is another IMP one with a fairly good peaceweight, who is often strong.

Pacal and Mansa are ok, but its rarer. Depends on what mode they are in, especially Pacal, who can go wonder-whore mode a lot, while remaining small. Often both will wind up in the wrong end of wars. Ofc, they are leaders who can actually win the game as vassals, usually by culture and maybe space...there is that.

On occasion I have see Monty and Shaka dominate a game, but the right cards need to be dealt...namely weak neighbors. They just tend to tech so poorly and often getting outgunned even though the build so many freaking units.

 

[BornInCantaloup]

Cows + pigs + forests = food and production. Sounds good to me. On such a start, warrior first followed by worker is okay while researching agri -> ah. SPI, starts with the Wheel, hippodrome is good UB for happiness in a cheap building, and Cataphract is like an early cheap cuir you just take a different tech path not great but at least good. Justinian is pretty good IMO not top tier but a good mid tier leader.

The start you describe will have you pumping out settlers fast. So fast you can easily overexpand with Justinian if not cornered by the AI extra early. Not sure why you'd go settler first just bc he's imperialistic. Much stronger to wait for good tiles, whipping, and chopping settlers out extremely fast than to pickup 2 unimproved cities, dropped science slider, no workers and only a partial lay of the land.

Not trying to be confrontational I'm just curious as to why settler first for Justinian specifically since there are other IMP leaders. I might be playing Justinian inefficiently so if I can improve my game with him, it's appreciated .

That's my point. Going warrior/settler first is hardly desirable.
Justinian is easily driven into these conditions because it takes so long for him to research Animal Husbandry.
If he lacks any use for Agriculture in the capital's BFC, then he's up for some terrible start.

The man doesn't have any upstart towards any food tech (Agr, Hunt, Fish) ; he also lacks Mining towards BW.
This is a trait that he shares with Saladin only (Wheel, Myst combo).

Yes, the forests, cows, pigs start is usually a good one, it would even be great as China, but it takes ages before Justinian can make anything out of it.
Some Animal Husbandry starts are already awkward with the likes of Pacal, Mansa, Gandhi ; Justinian just makes them worse. And Charlie should perform better than him under these conditions.


It's possible I'm overdoing it and the case wouldn't appear so often,
And I've just had bad experiences with him.
Traits & uniques are fine.

 

[Fippy]

Hunting is not so bad as starting tech if no Agri, agree with that for sure.
With Justi on AH starts, while waiting a couple turns for good improvements your worker can at least road between them in advance. Wheel helps here, and starting a settler (maybe finishing) is not terrible with Imp leaders while waiting for improved tiles.

Sometimes settler first and fully completed is good, it's 15 turns i think with plains hill starts.
Overall it's not that bad..hunting is still cheap, maximum delay of 6t.
Spi is worth more than that for me, no contest.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Hunting is not so bad as starting tech if no Agri, agree with that for sure.
With Justi on AH starts, while waiting a couple turns for good improvements your worker can at least road between them in advance. Wheel helps here, and starting a settler (maybe finishing) is not terrible with Imp leaders while waiting for improved tiles.

Sometimes settler first and fully completed is good, it's 15 turns i think with plains hill starts.
Overall it's not that bad..hunting is still cheap, maximum delay of 6t.
Spi is worth more than that for me, no contest.

I'm of the same mind regarding SPI. I regard it as a top tier trait.

The settler first thing is throwing me for a loop. Any time I've tried that, I end up behind where I expect to normally be. 15 turns of no growth (min) and then having to wait another 12 turns of no growth (min) to get a worker that now needs to improve 2 cities just seems like a recipe for falling behind. If you went worker first, it just takes a couple of roads towards the intended second city before you'd have AH and the worker would be able to improve pigs and cows. Settler would come much faster then like in 7 turns. Plus you've kept your research at 9 or 10 the whole time instead of dropping your slider.

Maybe if you got lucky and have a river connecting the new city to capital it could be worth it. But having both a riverside plains hill start and know right from turn 1 that you can settle a second city on that river that isn't trash is not a normal situation IMO. But I could see it happening. Most of the time, though, I'd rather have a worker ready to improve my second city than have 2 cities with unimproved tiles and no real knowledge of the map. To me, IMP strength is not in being able to go settler first but in the ability to 2 pop whip settlers with 1 turn invested, or max overflow a settler whip into another settler, or 2 chop a settler post math.

I'm not a consistent deity player... more immortal so if I'm missing something RE settler first in this scenario, I'm definitely open to learning.

 

[SnipedSoul]

The best AIs are usually those with middle peaceweight (not hated by warmongers or very peaceful ones).
Zara, Justi or Willy are good examples. Those are also favored by their good teching, and they usually happily trade with other AIs.

I think AIs also stop trading with each other at the limit, yup.
But some are more likely to reach friendly than others, and at friendly there are very few limits.

I played a game recently where Mansa skirmisher rushed Brennus and Gilgamesh who had each founded an early religion. It was really scary seeing Mansa snowball out of control like that.

I find that the number of "teams" is a good indicator of who will do well. If Ghandi is alone with shaka and Monty, he's probably screwed. If he gets some backup from another high peace weight civ, then the good guys usually out tech the warmongers in my games.

 

[Randy Random]

Imperialistic leaders tend to do very well in general.

There was a poster on the forums back in the early days whose sig said: "Land is power, land is power, land is power." Especially true for AI that don't pay jack for maintenance.

 

[elitetroops]

AI mostly benefit from passive traits that don't require too much planning to use effectively, because they can't plan with their traits in mind. SPI is the exception. In the hands of a human player, this trait needs to be actively leveraged, but to an AI it provides lots of passive benefit. The AI can't plan their civic or religious switches and might be randomly switching back and forth lots of times. I haven't counted, but I wouldn't be surprised if SPI saves an AI 20+ turns over the course of a long game.

PHI is pretty worthless for the AI. They can't plan to create useful great people, and even if they randomly happen to get some good ones, they are very likely to randomly choose something stupid to do with them. IND also probably hurts an AI more than it helps them. Makes them more likely to build wonders instead of expanding.