The survival of certain Civs in the mid to late game

[fittstim]

I find that Egypt is a lost cause. In my current game, they were the powerhouse of the early years but then, for no apparent reason, they went into a long period of decline. No war. No explanation. But they failed to keep up with the rest of the AI civs.

[TheStinger]

I find the Zulus lose early,they always pick on one civ too many

[Wormwood]

That's true. Look how high their aggression is set.

[Wormwood]

I think the Civs that have only a brief moment in the sun are the ones who tend to have early UUs, are very aggresive early on, and do not build a lot of cultural improvements in their captured cities, i.e. Rome, Zululand.

[bbaws]

I've never had a game where france survied for any length of time. I play huge with 16 civs as well. Even after a hundred games there are going to be players who just don't get games that meet the statistical norm. What I perceive to be the norm in my games is totally different to the norm in your games. Perhaps its time for us both to change our civs and uncheck culturally linked?

[bbaws]

The Zulu and English really make explorers worthwhile. Mid game I always find half their empires consist of 3*3 cities linked by roads that aren't in their territory. Pillaging with significant effects but not an act of war. Unsurprisingly the English and the Zulu never make it to the industrial era in my games. Applies to the Aztecs, too, but generally earlier..

[Mattaba]

Check this out: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=56961

[SpencerH]

I havent noticed that any one civ losses or threatens me by the late game more than any other. I have noticed that the expansionist civs are doing much better under 1.29 than before. America seem to be particularly good but that may have been luck.

[Boris Godunov]

I think this varies. I more often than not have seen the Americans and Greeks end up very minor powers even in the late game (I think America really gets picked on a lot in the game).

The only consistent things I have noticed is that if they get beyond the Industrial age, the Germans always become a major, aggressive power at the game's end, and that the English always tend to be a powerhouse.

[vmxa1]

I can not say I see any patterns, but if one does, it could be due to the CIv they choose. If you pick say Romans, you will tend to see the same civs in the same locations in relation to you (I do not know this for sure) and those that are close to the Human player are in the most jeapardy. I tend to jump around in regards to the civ I play, so I have differnt neighbors often and sometimes I will select who is in the game, just to shuffle it up.

[Zero]

In a symetrical map I played with 16 players, Egypt won the game in conquest, and not in the early ages. It had regular tanks and infantry. I was the only one left and there was no way I could have beaten egypt! boo hoo

In another game babylonia owned approximately 40% of landmass in 16 player game. funky lookin' Hamurabi had al the modern techs.

Often my experieence tells me Zulus are wild cards. They can easily be 3rd 4th place contender or 14, 15th.

I have yet to see any game where America was in top 5. I've seen them in middle power action before, but never a super power...

French either really suck and pay tribute the rest of the game to live or be in top 5.

England is quite aggresive, but not the most powerful

Aztecs and iroquois can be pretty good neighbors. Though I had many problems with iroquois sneak attacking me in several games, I always seem to make great deals with them.

At least in my games.