Ghandhi the Conquerer

[MGamer07]

I've been playing a few games of civ3 since I got it, and it's been fun learning the new twists on the game (Even though I've conquered the world before i could even get to the modern era.... maybe I should move up from Warlord). Most civs act like they would by their description, but I've noticed that Ghandi is a military dictator in the games I play. He had a huge number of cities, and even larger army than I had (I took care of that problem though ). I found him to be much harder to take out than one of the great conquers of history, Rome. Anyone else been seeing this? I've had this problem playing as both the German and the Greeks.

[Arrian]

I've never really noticed a powerful, warmongering Ghandi in any of my games. One thing I HAVE seen, every time, is a weak-as-hell Rome. Rome, played by the AI, is total garbage. I think the reason India put up more of a fight is that they have better civ traits, and thus simply had a better empire. You said they had a lot of cities. Well, that's a lot of production and commerce, which allows them to field a large, well funded military.

-Arrian

p.s. Move up to Regent

[hannibcannib]

that is funny Ghandi always kicks my ass!

[MGamer07]

In one of my German games, he was only a bit aggressive towards me, although he conquered half of Egypt. In the game as the Greeks (My first Civ3 game), he brought up a huge force of elephants and started kicking my hoplite's a$$es. I was badly defeated (I spent half my time figuring out that there was a diff between workers and settlers, hehe), and I gave up the rest of my empire to the current dominating counrty, Egypt, and resigned.

[Aeson]

I've noticed that the Indians are quite often the largest AI Civ in my games. The Babylonians and Chinese also do quite well. It probably just has to do with the starting locations though.

[Murtin]

Originally posted by Arrian
One thing I HAVE seen, every time, is a weak-as-hell Rome.

Me too!
Every time I've seen the Romans, they've been in trouble... and then it has got worse. Usually, though, it seems that they have been given tricky starting positions, ending up caught in between three or even four other civs.

[Hermann the Lombard]

In my current Monarch game (mentioned ad nauseum elsewhere), Ghandi attacked me opportunistically while I was fighting off a Persian invasion. [Perhaps he took exception to my fighting off the first wave in *his* territory.] I took about three of his cities, and he sued for peace. Soon after, I offered him a military alliance against Persia, and since then we've gotten along famously for 500 years, fighting the Persians all the way. He always expresses gratitude about my help against the Persians, and gee, after 500 years he's only "annoyed" with me.

I kinda assume that "there shall come a reckoning" between us, since he's a useful junior partner who may come to resent that role.

[Shaka II]

I agree with Arrian in that the Romans as played by the AI always seem to be weak.

Also, the starting location (Aeson) has so much effect, perhaps even more than specific civ traits. For example, in one game, where Ghandi had easily the largest civ, he started on a separate, large continent, while I had to share one about the same size with 3 other civs.

In present game, Ghandi is not doing so well. He shares my continent and he took most of Old Abe's land, while I took the rest. Lately, I have discovered tanks, (while he still has calvary), I have Hoover and Iron Works and have built a large army to remove him from my continent. This should allow me to reach parity with the larger civs.

My greatest good fortune occurred when the Indians attacked me (after I declared war), causing my MPP partner the Egyptians to declare war on them. The Indians apparently attacked the Egyptians, causing their MPP partner the Aztecs to declare war on them. This was especially good, since the Aztecs (large civ) had just signed an MPP with the Indians a few turns before, and I was a little nervous about going to war with them.

So, the closed MPP ring had a domino effect. Just have to be careful which way the dominos start to fall!

[Dry]

In my games (Monarch level), the powerfull AI civs are always industrials or the expansinists (US, Persia, France, China, Egypt, Russia, GB, Zulus,...).
The weaks : Japan, Rome, Germany
In my last game, I changed some csa. As an example, I made America commercial-religious and for the first time I had a weak american...
Coincidence?
If I had to make a CSA rating for AI civs - at monarch level - it would be something like
- Industrious
- Expansionist
- Scientific
- Commercial
- Military
- Religious
note: Some combinations may be more powerfull than what it seems (religious-science more powerfull than military-science)

[fezick31]

the question of scouts

Expansionist civs all start with scouts. This probably gives them an bonus in technology and locations for secondary cities since they can scout around with a unit (and find goody huts) while their main city moves along at the same pace as everyone else. While everyone else is looking for a good place to send their settler, the Civs with scouts already know where to put it.

It's just a theory, but you may want to edit the rules and give every civ a scout and see what happens?

[Hermann the Lombard]

Not only can they *find* goody huts, but the chances are high that they'll get something good from the hut. Other civs get the "opportunity for promotion."

[vmxa1]

I can not attest to what traits are best used by the AI, but humans will not rank religion at the bottom and in fact most put it at the top. Unless you are on a Huge map and maybe a Large map, I do not see any value in Expansion. The early scout is very minor and is of no use after the begining. As to huts, I played as expansion and had barbs and empty and the like. I have gotten settlers as non Exp civ, so whats the big deal. Down the road, you will be suffering when you want to change govs. How much loss production is that? At higher levels, you can really use those cheap temples.
IMO
Religion (pays over and over)
Ind / Sci (long lasting)
who cares (comm/mil)
Exp (no real use at all) and short lived

Ok, I will not argue with putting Mil at the bottom with Exp. Mil give cheap barracks (so what, early you do not make them and late....) improved odds for leader (I get the same amount roughly either way). Better chance for promotion (going to get the promo anyway).

In many games, I have found huts near cities of the AI with warriors, so again, why do I need scouts? The more I think about, the less I even agree with its value on huge maps. This is because you will have large tracts of empty lands and can use warriors to find the huts at your leisure. Beating the AI to one hut is not going to make or break the game.

[fezick31]

Originally posted by vmxa1
I can not attest to what traits are best used by the AI...
In many games, I have found huts near cities of the AI with warriors, so again, why do I need scouts? ... Beating the AI to one hut is not going to make or break the game.

This is true, but you are playing as an exansionistic tribe, just with warriors. The AI uses warriors as military only (ie conquest and defense). If you give the AI a scout, they will use it as such. It won't neccesarily break the game, but combined with civ traits, it might explain why Rome is usually a pushover.

[Aeson]

Exp (no real use at all) and short lived

Obviously Exansionist is more important the larger the landmass you start on. I would go as far as to say it is more important than any other 2 traits combined on a Huge Pangaea game. I almost always get every Tech in the Ancient Era for free when playing on those settings. It still has its uses on standard maps, anything smaller and it just isn't worth it. The AI does make good use of the Expansionist trait on larger maps itself. The non-Expansionist Civs don't seem to even try to open huts until later in the game. The Expansionist Civs usually tend to be the most advanced in the Ancient Era because of this.

Expansionist Civs seem to get better results from goodie huts, not just a lack of barbarians. I regularly get 1 settler from a hut on Deity, and 3+ on Regent. With a non-Expansionist Civ, I rarely get any. The early boost in expansion from the extra cities is huge, and taken advantage of properly can almost double a Civ's power throughout the game.

Scouts also make great *Scouts* as they can be in AI territory for a long time without having to be removed. This alone makes them very valuable as they can track AI unit movements and see the weak points in the defense before a war is started. If you don't mind using underhanded tactics against the AI, Scouts can be used to sit on resources in AI territory, not allowing them to build roads there. This is one area where Scouts really shine on smaller maps, as it is very easy to keep the AI without Iron and/or Horses almost indefinitely. With Scouts your map will be more valuable, and instead of paying the AI for their maps, you get paid in return. A good map is worth a tech or two per AI Civ when traded, plus a constant stream of 1-20 gold per AI per turn until the map is completed. During wartime, Scouts that you have on hand can be used as diversions, leading stacks of AI troops around in circles.

[vmxa1]

Just exactly what are you going to be trading in the ancient era? Since you do not have roads to their capitol, you can not trade anything but tech. At highest levels you wil not have much that they do not have in that era. On huge maps you will not met them soon enough (not always) to trade starting techs. You can of course win with any civ, but I have found EXP to be the least useful. I routinely kill any scout I see. Grabing lots of ancient techs is really just a mirage, as you are soon behind the AI no matter how many you get, until the middle ages (not true below say Regent or Monarch, but then they are so easy what does it matter).