it seems to me that civ4 leaders have their personalities coded a la civ3. haven't messed with editor yet, but obviously monty is an old nutter, agressive as hell, followed closely by alex and some other sneaky bastards.
what i noticed, and admittedly my sample is only 5 games, is that certain civs seem destined to languish. monty gets to mid ladder at most. saladin is always in the top half. louis was good on both occassions. tokugawa is below par, ceasar at least average. cathy seems to always do very well.
what are your impressions, are there perrenial winners or losers? should all AI personalities perform roughly equally in a large sample of games or should some always be also-rans if they contribute to the overall flavor.
what i noticed, and admittedly my sample is only 5 games, is that certain civs seem destined to languish. monty gets to mid ladder at most. saladin is always in the top half. louis was good on both occassions. tokugawa is below par, ceasar at least average. cathy seems to always do very well.
what are your impressions, are there perrenial winners or losers? should all AI personalities perform roughly equally in a large sample of games or should some always be also-rans if they contribute to the overall flavor.
Comment