The leader's character

[AkwaticDudeCity]

If you check intelligence, you'll see something like:
King Richard of the English (Enraged, War)
Expansionist
About that Expansionist; I remember i've seen it explained somewhere b4, but i can't find it anymore. There was a complete listing of leaders' characters and what that meant for their 'civstyle'. For example a perfectionist would build a few thriving cities rather than a whole bunch of mediocre ones.
Can anyone please explain to me all those different characteristics or provide me a link to where i once saw it?
I'm trying to edit a few scenarios to make my opponents more aggresive so they'll put more effort in trying to wipe me out. It gets kinda boring when they run out of their pre-placed troops. I'm trying to figure out a way to make the AI launch more sustained assaults. Seriously, it's going to take a helluva lot more than one measly Hvy. Infantry per odd turn to recapture a fully fortified frontline city. I want them to show up with siege and the supporting infantry and cavalry.

------------------
ugh crud, why won't they fall prey to my Machiavellian schemes?

[AkwaticDudeCity]

Never mind, found it already.
If you wanna know; it's the 'Help' button in 'Tribe Editor' for FW. I'll see what that results in...

------------------
ugh crud, why won't they fall prey to my Machiavellian schemes?

[Cam]

There's a theory that behaviour is as much related to the tribe slots/position as it is to the 'expansionist vs. perfectionist' et al in rules.txt. For instance - the Egyptians will, in my experience, be much more interested in chasing The Pyramids and Adam Smith's Trading Co. than the Chinese, even though they share the same alleged characteristics. The Chinese on the other hand seem to be more keen on getting The Great Library (these are very general observations). Likewise, the Indians are notorious warmongers, even though their stat's present them as "rational, perfectionist". So I suggest that there could be more hard-coded stuff beyond what is presented in rules.txt.

Not to assert however that these characteristics are totally off - the Zulus and the Mongols are usually true to form.

I would take into account the tribe slots as well as amending the '1,1,-1' style of characteristics - for instance, in your aggressive AI scenario, use the Persian slot in the light blue range, or avoid the Babylonians in the green group, in addition to making those changes to 'attack, expand, civilize'.

[This message has been edited by Cam (edited April 03, 2000).]

[Neon Deon]

AK,
I have been messing with the Alexander scenario for sometime now. The goal for me is to get Alex to take over the world as an AI. Well all but the Egyptians. as i play a
human observer (sort of). First thing i did was make him mean and nasty by editing king to aggressive Expand military. That didnt
work.Persians kicked his butt. Then I changed his Govt. to oligarch(fundy)& adjusted the tech tree so as not to give anyone muskateers,frigates etc etc. Then set up events for alex to make aggression on everyone all the time. Made it so Alex could
talk to no one(cept for the egyptians being the observer and all). and edited treaties to show vendetta and war against everyone.
Next i beefed up the cavalry making it exclusive to Macedonia gave him fundy tech and made them free from support. Woo hoo! Get outta The Great's way here he comes! Nope! Now, I am on the verge of smashing my
computer into itsy bitsy pieces when i decide to change my observer perspective to thracians and allies. I made the thracians a
permanent ally of Alex. It was then that i noticed the greeks could not get out of thier
own way. The land bridges between Greece and the Middle East were too small for the computer AI to handle!!! Sooooo I filled in most of the Aegean sea along with the Dardenells. This worked. Alex took over the world. Of course the map looks kinda funky

[AkwaticDudeCity]

Neon, i see what you mean. I am experiencing a similar thing in a scenario i'm playing; The Great Crusades by Joel Andre.
I'm playing as the Fatimids and i managed to get the Seljuqs to cancel our alliance and declare war on me. While i in turn allied myself with the Al-Andalus. All this to put my Machiavellian schemes in motion.
My intention was i'd push the Seljuqs from the Levant and Anatolia, while the Al-Andalus, with cities both in North-Africa and the Iberian peninsula, would consolidate their hold on the Iberian peninsula and occupy and soften up the French for my coming armies.
Now when i exchange maps i can see the Andalusians have tons of heavy equipment in North Africa bound for the Iberian peninsula, but somehow the AI is too stupid to load them in a transport and get them to the frontlines. Instead they just keep wandering around while on the other side they're getting slaughtered.
It seems the AI recognizes the connection between the two continents, by way of going round through the Sinaï, Levant, Anatolia, Danube valley etc., but not across the Straits which obviously is a shorter route.
Guess this is one of the reasons my Machiavellian schemes don't always work

------------------
ugh crud, why won't they fall prey to my Machiavellian schemes?

[Neon Deon]

Yuck. make a new folder copy the scenario and fill in the straits of gibraltar. It might work.