I've seen a LOT of anecdotal evidence floated around as God's own truth concerning Civ 4 and it's multitude of AI minions. There seem to be some accepted received truths:
- Montezuma is a war-monger
- Isabella is a religious zealot
- Gandhi is good at the space race
- Tokugawa is an isolationist
But for every one of these "truths" I've experienced its disproof, such as the time Tokugawa came THIS close to winning a diplomatic victory.
Certainly, in any game as varied and variable as Civ 4 it would be foolish to think that no dramaticly different outcomes would result from the same AI.
To try to do this more scientifically, we'll start with a poll whose hypothesis I think we can all agree on:
"In your experience, which AI leader is most likely to declare war on you?"
Hypothesis: Montezuma will be chosen at least 40 percent of the time, and more than any other leader.
Does anyone think this would be useful data to have concerning other assumptions of AI behavior?
- Montezuma is a war-monger
- Isabella is a religious zealot
- Gandhi is good at the space race
- Tokugawa is an isolationist
But for every one of these "truths" I've experienced its disproof, such as the time Tokugawa came THIS close to winning a diplomatic victory.
Certainly, in any game as varied and variable as Civ 4 it would be foolish to think that no dramaticly different outcomes would result from the same AI.
To try to do this more scientifically, we'll start with a poll whose hypothesis I think we can all agree on:
"In your experience, which AI leader is most likely to declare war on you?"
Hypothesis: Montezuma will be chosen at least 40 percent of the time, and more than any other leader.
Does anyone think this would be useful data to have concerning other assumptions of AI behavior?
Comment