Elizabeth this, Peter that, Ghandi this (are AI personalities really different?)

[VetLegion]

I've been reading the fora for some days now and I have noticed that people use phrases like "Peter (the great) likes to do this" or "Elizabeth is a female dog" or "Watch out for Alexander" or "Montezuma is sure to attack you early".

I was under the impression that AI leaders don't have personal scripts. Do they or do they not?

For example, if someone makes a mod with a Financial and Expansive leader, will he behave the same as English leader Victoria? Or does she have unique preprogrammed behaviour?

[Cort Haus]

There is a table of personality variables in the XML, which are in turn used by functions within the game.

There is no doubt that these variables do provide different 'personalities'. They won't necessarily behave the exact same way each game, but over a number of trials they are definitely personalised.

Montezuma is a nutcase. Fact.

If someone wanted to mod in a leader, they could use those variables, but at this stage would have to guess on the 'black-box' behaviour of the functions that use the variables. The guesses would have to be made on variable names and the observed behaviour of existing leaders.

[yin26]

My sense so far is that the civs geared to have strong early starts, for example, trigger the "I am stronger at this point and should do something with it" track while the ones set to be stronger later in the game bide their time. This only makes sense, but, as Cort Haus, says, this isn't a hard rule. Rather, I think it *is* a hard rule but you have to factor in the starting locations: A typically strong early civ with a bad start will turtle. Likewise, a civ with a strong late game who starts with a killer opening is just as likely to hit that "I'm stronger" plan much earlier.

[VetLegion]

Well, I think that the only thing that modifies generic AI behaviour are the two leader traits. If there is something else, what is it specifically?

I disagree with strong starts / strong endgames. I think AI can't tell its strengths and always plays the same. For example, I don't believe that there is code that makes AI utilize its unique unit.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
There is a table of personality variables in the XML, which are in turn used by functions within the game.

Do you perhaps know which file is it? I'd take a look.

[Common Sensei]

The Civ4LeaderHeadInfos.xml file contains a section for each leader personality.

There is a section called MemoryAttitudePercent which seems to affect how much they care about each possible diplomatic adjustment, among other things which seems to affect behavior.

[yin26]

Originally posted by VetLegion
I disagree with strong starts / strong endgames. I think AI can't tell its strengths and always plays the same. For example, I don't believe that there is code that makes AI utilize its unique unit.

But there surely is a running tally of overall strength (most notably shown in the score) that takes many things into account for the AI, regardless of personality or UU. Of course, if that UU is itself particularly strong, say, in the an early game, simply producing some will reflect a boost in relative power. I'm not pretending anything more complicated than this is going on. In fact, the simplicity of it seems to work quite well.

[Hauptman]

They simply applied a certain value to each dilpo benefit for each civ. and each civ has the values set differently than another. So what you end up with is crude, but real, personalities that make you love and or hate seeing a certain green civ at your border.

Isebella, a fine example, starts the game at a lower diplo rating than most. Now her main diplo benefit revolves around religion. If you share a religion she gives you a HUGE bonus and becomes quite pleased with you. If you run a different religion the bonus is a large negative, so now she is anoyed, or furiose, even if you have been suplying her with resources or other +modifiers.

Monty "the nutjob" Montezuma, he leans more towards military bonuses. He is also scripted to attack the nearest weakest apponent ASAP to gain land. Now what happenes is even if you share a religion, open borders, or resources, when he is ready to attack he looks at your power as he puts very little stock in diplo bonuses except for one. "Join me in destroying..." This bonus makes him like you bunches and much less likely to target you in his warmongering.

Hatsepshut I think that girl just has more pluses than minuses because i can never do wrong with her for an extended period of time in any game. she's constantly begging to be my bedmaid.

[Blake]

By far the best example is Tokugawa.

[Jaguar]

Yes. While most AIs agree with Open Borders, even if they're at -1 or something with you, Tokugawa won't agree to Open Borders until you're at least +3 or so.

[Strategist83]

-Which makes sense, as his favourite civic is mercantilism. A true xenophobe.

All the leaders have lots of personality. If you think otherwise you simply have not had enough experience with the game.

[Strategist83]

My only complaint is that leaders are in fact 'role-playing' *too much* and focus too little on actually winning. If a bordering leader likes you you can practically have no defenses and they still will not seize the opportunity and attack - just because the two of you share a religion.

[LordShiva]

True, I've felt this too.

[TheHateMale]

It's not always a benefit to attack. To do so would mean they lose units, have to pay more maintenance every turn and leave their empire less defended on average.

As mentioned in another thread - you can win this game with a handful of cities and only defending against wars.

[Saurus]

I think the A.I tries to win very hard and is willing to sacrifice quite a bit of its "personality" in order to manage to do this.
I have had Ghandi attack me out of the blue for instance.
Rosevelt has attacked me unprovoked sveral times.
A.I has personality - but is ultimately trying to win.