Leader Personalities

[cassembler]

Anyone wanna put in their $.02 about common trends in personalities of AI leaders?

My observations:

England- Queen Elizabeth : Always has the most expensive and usually most comprehensive world maps. Settles lots of cities in distant places (colonizing?). Stays out of the way usually, unless you piss her off.

Indians- Ghandi : Sometimes unusually agressive, though once you = him or better, he's just a cool dude. Stays out of the way and packs a formidable punch power wise. Looks really pimp in the industrial age.

Germans- Bismark : If he can beat someone up, he'll try to. If he can't, he'll wait until he can. Never have I gone through a game where we didn't have out little "spats"

French- Joan-o-Arc : Cutie pie that likes culture a lot, easily makes friends, and makes a good "hit man" if you bribe her to attack another civ. I've seen her call on like 5 other nations to attack this one Civ after I bribed her to.

Zulu- ?Shaka?: Never has much to say, give, do, or settle. Just a speed bump for most, but if you attempt to give him stuff in a way to keep his power in a particular region, he uh... still doesn't say, give, do, or settle much.

Greeks- Alexander : This guy's an arrogant bung hole. He's always like "you a punk, you be wastin' my time, Yeah I'll give you 3 gold for Nationalism, but that's me hookin' YOU up."

Americans- Lincoln : Civilized chap, stays on top of things, and likes to build up stuff. Can pack a punch, but sometimes has priorities misplaced.


ok you guys gotta take over now...
***I wasn't thinkin'... I guess this should be in the CIvilizations forum***

[godinex]

Xerxes: Arrogant stupid, son of a bit... I hate Him is the mos umpredictable of all.

[Worthingtons]

Catherine - Russians - Arrogant,annoying,Ruthless *****, Will always demand something off you unless you're well supreme

Alexander - Greeks - I find him quite funny, even if a little arrogant.

Mao - Not as funny civ intended him to be, and quite annoying

[Ninot]

Catherine: Evil if she is bigger than you, but if you equal her or overpower her, big suckup. Also, humongous suckup if she has a mutual enemy with you

Shaka: Late game settler. I dunno, in my games, for the first 4000 years, Shaka seems to get along fine with a half a dozen cities, and then he goes nuts settling everything no one else wants.

ill have some more later..

[TheDarkCavalier]

Tokugawa - Japan a ... and NO, that's MY patch of Saltpeter, ok then to settle there you'll need to give 1/2 your treasury and all your techs, NO? PREPARE FOR WAR!!! type of leader. He'll be always backstabbing you, or at least when you're at a huge war, he'll always sign a mil. alliance against you...

Chief Hiawatha - Iroquois ... VERY annoying, expands when you DON'T want him to expand, and when you assimilate his cities, gets annoyed, VERY annoyed, VERY-VERY-VERY ANNOYED!!! and generally assails you with AT LEAST 2 friends.

Hammurabi - Babylon ... a peace-loving SOB, but if angered, he'll most likely try buy you off, and if sucessful he'll amass his army for ... say... 50 turns and declare war, having prepared some alliances.

Caesar - Rome ... unless you're supreme, VERY supreme, he'll try to annihilate you right away with his legionnaries, and when he conquers 2-3 cities, he could offer you a peace treaty, or just kill you right away, if beaten off, he'll hold an IMMENSE grudge against you, even to the modern times, and will try to kick you in the back whenever possible.

Aztecs - Montesuma ... almost the same as Hiawatha (see the ressemblance? )

Cleopatra - If your supreme right away, she'll always (or until you're better) be your friend, but she finds better friends, she'll suddenly get mad at you for no reason, and well.. you could find yourself in a 1vs(any large amount) war.

Completely agree with other posts ...

k... been playing Monarch - now Emperor, always opting for Domination, but not from the start. Played about 30 full games, right from Chieftain - Civ III is my first Civ game.

[Ninot]

Licoln, Hiawatha, Montesuma=Three stooges. They are ALWAYS fighting in my games. but if a go over to fight one, they all become friends to fight off the party pooper.

also, I found Japan and Germany to be quick friends

As for Hamurabi, he seems to be the coolest of the leaders. Ive never seen him in a bad mood, unless he has had good reason to be in one (namely, me swamping all of his continental cities in one turn, leaving him nothing but a few islands near the poles)

This thread just gave me an idea....

[nato]

I would really really like to believe that there are different AI personalities, but are there? I thought they were all pretty much the same except for the aggressiveness rating. I figured their behavior was based mostly on game / map position.

Does anyone know for sure that there are "personalities"? Are you seriously noting consistant differences?

Just asking ... I'd like to believe it, but find it hard to.

[Pius Popprasch]

Originally posted by nato
Does anyone know for sure that there are "personalities"? Are you seriously noting consistant differences?

Soren J. described Elizabeth as cautious.
Well, there are settings in the bic file. Not only aggression but also preferred governments. There are also the traits. Commercial civs love to trade and militarists love war. Elizabeth prefers e.g. Sanitation while other civs develop other techs first.

[Harovan]

I find Liz, Cathy and Abe quite annoying in builder style games. They tend to be between cautious and polite, seldom are annoyed. That's generally not bad, but all they take the first opportunity to sign alliances and embargoes against the human player. This backstabbing behavior makes them a high security risk.

Joan is a great ally, and I do all I can to keep her friendly. She has not the best traits for warmongering, but with her by your side you are really stronger, and not weaker like with other allies. Gandhi is the same type, but I seldom have alliances with him, because he's mostly far away.

When I have Bismarck as opponent, his bevavior depends on my strength. When I'm stronger, he tends to be polite and very useful, just like Joan. When I'm equal or weaker, he's a pain. Same, by the way, with Shaka and Tokugawa, but Shaka also tends to be a bit backstabbing. I find him funny though, when he asks me to ally with him, to protect his cows . And his "medieval" hat is hilarious.

Mao's behavior seems to depend not on my, but on his own strength. If he's weak compared with the average of all civs, he's friendly and reliable. But if he's strong, he's a sucker. No, that's not a "funny funny joke".

Hammu and Xerxes are suckers. I seldom see them polite or better, and always end up in wars with them.

Montezuma and Hiawatha are mostly far away and peaceful. Their strong period is in the ancient era and already over when I discover them. Monte is usually poor and I keep to feed him with obsolete techs for 1 gold or alike. Hiawatha has more money, but mostly is technologically backwards, so tech trading with him is fun. May have changed with 1.17f, I didn't have him as opponent since the patch, I seldom play these days. Both keep to ally up and declare war on me, when I try to start "limited" wars on their continent, to secure a resource or so. Thus they make sure, these wars are no more "limited".

Caesar, Alex and Cleo are good trade partners and tend to stay peaceful, regardless of their mood. But there are exceptions, sometimes.

Hope it was 2 cents worth. Euro cents, I mean.

[The JIG is up]

still think SMAC-leaders have way more personality

[Arrian]

I think Nato's pretty much right, in that aside from aggressiveness, there is very little difference between the AI's (clealry, aggressiveness can make a big difference in behavior).

The one possible exception is Elizabeth. I remember Soren saying Liz was deliberately coded to be manipulative. I've played a ton of games, and the English remain the only civ I have ever seen to do this:

England is at war with Persia.
"The English and the Indians have signed a military alliance vs. Persia. India declares war on Persia!"
"The English and Persians have signed a peace treaty."

Same turn, back-to-back messages. I laughed at Ghandi.

-Arrian

[cassembler]

No, I think that they do seem to have distinct personalities, although the editor has a few settings that obviously affect this.

The goal of this thread was to see if anyone else found somethin "peculiar" about a certain civ.

The easiest example is Elizabeth.
She:
a) always has the most expensive maps
b) tends to settle many little colonies around the entire earth
c) takes too many milk baths.

Joan is similar, as stated in the first post...
maybe I should compile everybody's thoughts on each leader and see if we see any trends or common observations...

I'll work on that.

[nato]

Well thanks guys for replying to my question. I'm still not sure one way or the other, but I think I'm a doubter.

I had already seen the quote about Elizabeth too. I would like to think that that implied other leaders had personalities, but since she is the only one constantly mentioned, I think she may be some sort of exception. I have to admit I have no idea why she would be picked above everyone else though.

Is Elizabeth the easiest example, or the only example? I just don't know.

Maybe the only way to really know would be to have two different leaders in the exact same map/game position, and see if they acted differently...

It would be cool if civ traits (like commercial) did indeed make a difference.

Like Sir Ralph, Joan is always my prefered ally. But I have always figured this is simply because she is the only one with an aggressiveness of 1!

Anyway thanks for answering.

[Thrawn05]

Queen Liz - England = Total jerk. I usualy have to take her out in the achient age.

Cathrine - Russia = Another jerk, she demands too much.

Bismark - Germany = My bestest bud. I always give him free tech, and keep him happy. It all pays off in the industrial age, since he'll become a hit man for about 10 gold.

Mao - China = another early take out. I never liked him.

Joan - France = I don't know why, but she is the reason I'm always going to war. She's evil to the highest order.

Xerxes - Persia = A punk, a pure punk.

Hann. - Babylon = A cool dude until the modern age, where he thinks he's the pimp of the world. ICBM hogger.

Alexander - Greek = He never last long in most of my games. Usualy france will kick his butt and he's gone in a 30 turn war. Sometimes I pitch in.

Shaka - Zulu = I don't get him. Did firaxis programed him right?

Cleopatra - Egypt = I think this smily will sum it up:

[Skanky Burns]

Ceaser - Roman = Always the runt of the group. Tries to push his weight around, but normally doesn't have much. He is usually removed from the world very soon, despite having a decent UU.

Mao - Chinese = He likes a large empire. Is always on the lookout for other empires to absorb into his already formidable bulk.