Which AI Leaders are a challange?

[Destroyer]

I have played my last two games on a megahuge marathon map with six civs - Prince level.

Each game, the Incan has taken a 500, and then 1000 point lead by the industrial age, and been well ahead in the tech stakes.

This is in contrast to all the other civs who are 1000-2000 points behind, and will still be using riflemen when the Incan rolls in with modern armor and mobile infantry.

Apart from this, only the Japanese kept pace with me in a single game.

I class myself as a reasonably good player, a vet of Civ1 on the Amiga, and cant work out why I am so far behind the Incans on tech, when I can keep my research up to 80-90% most of the game, and have about the same cities (with Lizzy).

I also cant work out why the other civs are so awful. Are some civs just not good when given room to expand?

I dont want to jump up a level, when the Incans are quite cleary miles better than me.

[Solver]

They're different. Each has different strengths and thus is good in different situations.

Incans like to put it all into research, and they like to trade. Thus, they are usually able to attain a tech lead.

An aggressive leader such as Genghis Khan or Isabella can be very powerful under the right circumstances. If they start the game next to someone weaker, they'll possibly conquer a part/all of that weaker civ's empire, and thus grow the stronger for it.

I'm surprised you say the Japanese do something, I always remember them as being by far the weakest civ.

[Destroyer]

With the Japs it was just one game.

They had room to expand on all sides, and did not get into a war until the industrial era.

[Blake]

IMO the most dangerous military leader is Napoleon, when he goes to war he doesn't mess around!

The most dangerous economic leader is Mansa Musa, he very often needs a good smashing to stop him trying to launch. He's diplomatic enough to usually not get destroyed by other AI's.

The least dangerous AI is Tokugawa.

In the early game, the weakest neighbours (for invasion purposes) are Indians, Americans, English, Arabs and Chinese. All tend to have minimal garrisons. Beware thjat sooner or later they tend to gear up for invasion, like Saladin has a nasty habit of building a UNHOLY number of camel archers. In fact getting their UU might be their cue for them to build up a LARGE military. If I do get one of these civs as a neighbour I'll definitely invade them, especially if they found religions or build wonders.

[Urban Ranger]

What Solver said. If you play on a huge map with only 6 civs, the peaceful expansionists will have a field day. If you play on a duel map with 18 civs, the warmongers are going to kick arse.

[Destroyer]

My games are always on hugex2 maps.

Some AIs just stop expanding. I guess the game want designed to be played or tested properly at that size.

[Saurus]

From my experience, Alexander is the most dangerous A.I. Acts somewhat similary to Napoleon but is much more agressive.

[Solver]

Some AIs just stop expanding. I guess the game want designed to be played or tested properly at that size.

Size shouldn't be much of a consideration directly, but quite likely, the costs of expanding become too large, so they stop - a hugex2 map would leave a lot more space per civ than any built-in map size.

[unamablebuiler]

india can grab all the wonders if it is a peaceful game thats what it did in similar circumstances with me delhi had bout 10 wonders not counting nat ones.

alexander can and will wreck any CS slingshot as will any aggro civ withing striking distance. but the builders can get overwheling leads 3 eras in front.

[Blake]

Originally posted by Saurus
From my experience, Alexander is the most dangerous A.I. Acts somewhat similary to Napoleon but is much more agressive.

Some leaders like Isabella and Alex are pretty aggressive about declaring war on a whim, but you could usually convicne yourself that they are just trying to spook you with a few raiders.

But when Napoleon declares war, his stacks only come in one size - Of Doom! His stacks seem to be at least twice as big as mere mortal AI's. Granted they are usually pretty inferior in tech since he has about the worst research traits in the game, but by god he makes up for quality with quantity. (ALL AI's attack with big stacks later in the game, but Napoleon runs around with stacks of doom or horse archers and swordmen!)

And Alex can actually be befriended. He's one of my favorite snivelling little minions.

[calixstus]

the incan civ specific unit is lethal in the early game. As the defensive and offensive unit of choice is archers for the first 2000 years, and these guys get a +100% bonus to archers.
Ive had games where take 2 or 3 of these unites up to 60 combat points just wreaking havoc on early neighbors, but the Incan AI never seems to use them for the advantage they present

[Saurus]

Originally posted by Blake

Some leaders like Isabella and Alex are pretty aggressive about declaring war on a whim, but you could usually convicne yourself that they are just trying to spook you with a few raiders.

In the case of Isabella, I agree.
Alexander is another matter.
Alexander has wiped me out in almost every game he has appeared when I have played on Emperor.
He attacks very early (usually before 1000BC) and if I somwhow manage to survive, then he will just attack again after a while. (some 30-40 turns). He uses this time to just organize the next attack.
He cannot be bribed to attack another civ as he claims that "he have too much at his hands" witch is true - he is preparing to attack me again!

[uberfish]

Alex and Monty are generally the worst for psycho early rushes where they actually walk their units past another civ to attack you at a time their economy surely can't sustain the distance upkeep. It's funny though - last game I played I had good relations with Monty for almost the entire game and we fought a 2 on 2 war with Hatshepsut and Gandhi who had launched unprovoked attacks on me.

Genghis is a mercenary and it's best to bribe him to attack your enemies before they bribe him to attack you.

Isabella and Saladin are more or less free shrines if you attack in force before Guilds, they waste so much time in the early game focusing on religion that they're weak.

On the flip side, Napoleon will attack you for YOUR free shrine as you're transitioning out of any sort of fancy slingshot or religious build, and even if he doesn't kill you will have enough troops to set you back a few hundred years' worth of pillaging.

And I find that any of the 3 pacifist financial AI (MM, Elizabeth and Washington) and surprisingly Hatshepsut too can be a long term threat to get a runaway tech lead if they received a lucky start.

All this is based on mainly standard speed continental.

[Solver]

Alexander, though, is very much agreeable if you're stronger than him. Montezuma will hate you anyway, and attack the moment he gets a chance.

Saladin, with his love for theocracy and camel archers, ends up with a highly elite army in the Medieval most of the time. I found him to be a great friend, though, if you have the same religion.

[Badtz Maru]

It's funny that Tokugawa is weak as the AI plays him, because his traits, UU, and techs are a pretty strong combination. I've recently been learning to appreciate the Organized trait, and it works great with Aggressive. Fight an early war to wipe out or cripple a nearby civ, use the boost from their cities to tech up and take out targets of opportunity, if you haven't conquered your continent by the time you get Samurai you will soon after, and you'll probably end up with several units with 4+ promotions (load up on City Raider, when you start rolling in the dough and start upgrading, Riflemen with City Raider 3 are godly).