The survival of certain Civs in the mid to late game

[Traelin]

I don't know if another thread has discussed this, but I have consistently noticed that certain AIs NEVER survive into the mid to late game, and other Civs ALWAYS become substantial powerhouses. I've been trying to ascertain if it is a balance issue with Civ traits or if it is something else a bit more subtle.

Assuming the Civ doesn't have a bad starting position, here's some of the things I've noticed in my games (all on Huge map with 16 Civs):

-- The Egyptians have NEVER survived into the Modern Age in any of my games. In fact, they rarely make it to the mid to late Industrial Age. If I'm not mistaken, they are Industrious and Religious. The Industrious trait should be enough, I would think, to help them along. But it never fails that they end up at war with either the Romans or Zulus. A military alliance against them then forms and they are history in a matter of 20-30 turns.

-- The Aztecs become a meaningless Civ around the late IA/early MA. This can probably be attributed to their insatiable appetite for land-grabbing (due to the Mil. trait), however I just can't figure out how Joan always manages to incite the entire world against them. Which leads to the next point...

-- Again, assuming Joan doesn't have a bad starting position (which I've only seen once ever), the French are always the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd most powerful Civ in the game. In my games these top three Civs are very close entering the MA, with me holding one of the 3 positions. It never fails to amaze me how much work I have to do to hold her in check. My recent game as the Americans forced me to wipe out the Russians just to prevent her 100 turn war from gobbling up their last 6 cities. Good God, does she have some amazing charisma or something that I don't know about? No matter who she's sparring with, they never ever ever ask for peace, and her juggernaut marches on...

-- The Persians (with the exception of my current game) are quite often one of the top three Civs. I'm not even going to go into Xerxes' freakish tactics. He wigs out about the mid to late Middle Ages (probably due to the Immorts) and never looks back.

-- Some other miscellaneous notes... The rest of the Civs are either rendered meaningless or wiped by the mid to late Industrial Age. The English do themselves in with their warmongering and lack of attention to culture. The list could go on, but the major points are those listed above. Anyone else notice these trends? If so, what is your reasoning behind it?

I realize that, logically, there are always going to be superpowers in a Civ game. And if one is playing on his/her appropriate difficulty setting, he/she will be one of them. It's nonetheless disturbing to me that it's always the same ones. If I had a penny for every time Joanie pisses me off, I'd be a rich man!

[Theseus]

Traelin, take a look at some of the threads about killer AI civs, AI greatness, etc., for other similar observations, as well as some efforts to specifically encourage the development of AI superpowers.

I agree, for some reason France comes out at or near the top time and time again... I think maybe even more so now that commercial has been improved. I often see Greece and Germany do well also.

I think that the "early" civs, as well as the Iroquois, Aztecs, and Zulus, may have been purposefully disadvantaged in some way, and that when that is taken in conjuction with either a a poor starting environment or the "wrong" neigbors (or sometimes both), they flame out.

[Traelin]

That's an interesting point Theseus, I never thought that perhaps the ancient Civs were deliberately "pruned" to peter out in the later game. I'll definitely take a look at some of those other threads, especially those that involve encouraging other Civs to develop into superpowers.

[reefer addict]

if you want even balance among the civs then flag them all the same in the editor. i have all set to build often defense, workers, air and navy and have seen all the civs win and all the civs lose.

i switched america and france's traits ( america being a early powerhouse never made sense to me ) and france is still a dominant civ in most games, but they have been wiped out as well.

as far as culture goes, when none have that flag checked they build it when they need it. on a world map france, england and germany have the top 5 cities most of the time due to the closeness of there civs and the need to keep the ground they have, while egypt and the zulu ignore culture and build massive armies

[Arc]

i noticed USA always becoming a superpower in most of the games i make.
Well until i crush them

[Wormwood]

Just my observations, but Civs are the most powerful around the period of time when their UU is relevant. Obviuosly, much of this is due to the golden age, but I think that they like to produce a large number of their UU's, and are determined to se them. Basically, they become most aggressive when the UU shows up, and it's war that allows the expand and become dominant. Aztecs always fall by the wayside, whereas Greece, with it's mainly defensive unit, often seems to last well into the modern age. I've never been that threatened by Greece militarily, but they are often outstanding science and resource trade partners. Germany and Russia are late bloomers, but powerful late game. Rome is a real powehouse for a good period of time, but after that, they end up with a bunch of no culture, undeveloped cities. Babylon usually isn't too powerful militarily, but always has best or second best culture, and so tend to exist as a neutral country late into the game. Just watch out for thm once they get their bowmen. I think the AI's that have either the commercial or industrious trait do the best late game, since they have actually taken the time to build up their infrastructure, and sort of "buy their way into power".

[DrFell]

Still, commercial is a rather weak trait overall, and even with it's improvement it's still second-class. You'd expect a civ like Egypt with solid traits and a good UU to do well all throughout the game.

[vmxa1]

Cleo is not aggressive enough and relys on her charm (culture) and so often goes down for the count early.

[alva]

Could it be that some civs( example: egypt), with great traits, are actually too strong fot their own good? Sort of burn out, overrun themselves (don't have the word to discribe it, but you know what I mean, don't you)

(Or was this done on purpose?? (too strong too early=---> dumb down, go into stupid mode )

[Hunter Hutchins]

On huge world map (not default), 16 civs

Playing France.

Germany....got all agressive in ancient and I took them out with warriors & archers
England...got agressive in medieval and too them out, say swordmen & knights
Rome...Rome got walled in by me, greece, russia, and was very weak, took them out in late industrial
Greece...ignored greece for a very long time tending to other civs, very large over most of asia, got a right of passage, stationed troops, waited for it to expire and nailed them in 3 turns.
Persia...small but extremely powerful. On advisers says military is strong compared to theirs, but any war with persia seems to be a loser.
China. China is big, advanced, lots of AI alliances...but weak.
Egypt. Egypt took out the Zulu and covers all of africa. Just starting on them. Declared war on me for having workers pass through her territory
Babylon. got agressive? maybe had an alliance with england or something, beat them out but they survived because they had one tile cities before I had marines.
Aztecs. Loves "Iroquios" and powerful.
Iri...you know....loves aztecs, very strong. (btw kept america a state secret for 1000 years before other civs discovered them...other civs were begging for contact!)
Americans. Weak, and cornered by the aztecs & iri. Got blown up by them after an old-world bargained war.
Indians. Got agressive! Wanted peace...just so long as they can invade my cities in China! Bargained world-wide alliance against indian treachery made them a weak island power.
Japan...isolated and weak no discovery until late feudal
Russia...declared war with alliance, overran them....MA vs infantry mostly. they got MA & MI late in the war, but it was way too late for them.

=)

[Minmaster]

egypt tends to stay around a long time in my games

[TacticalGrace]

In my most recent game Egypt, Rome and Greece were on one continent and left to their own devices. I was on the other contintent with everyone else (who were subsequently wiped out by me and my warmongering ways).

My only interaction was in the late industrial era to try to get Greece and Rome to go to war with Egypt (Egypt was looking the largest). In the subsequent war Egypt swallowed up more than half of Greece and Rome and is now a superpower.

In other games I have seen just about all the civs become "superpowers". Yes, even India on one occasion.

[Wormwood]

If INdia survives and survives into late game, they tend to become real bullies, and are always leading an international coalition against the smallest civ, one at a time.

[Barchan]

Originally posted by Wormwood
If INdia survives and survives into late game, they tend to become real bullies, and are always leading an international coalition against the smallest civ, one at a time.

Yeah, I've noticed that too. "Peaceful resistance" my butt! Gandhi’s usually doing a lot more than marching to the sea and making salt in my games. If they can make it to Chivalry, they're usually in the game for the long haul. But by the end, they are the puppet masters, working MPPs and alliances all over the place and snacking on one weakling civ after another. Being religious, they've usually got the culture to wage a successful war *and* keep the cities they take. They can be a pretty pesky civ if left unattended for too long....

[Kampus majore]

I think it probably got to do with the Culturally linked starting position as well. If the same civs start with the same civs in their neighbourhood each time the results will be the same often. It also depends on the fact if you start with the same civ often. I tend to switch every now and then and then the results of which civ survives and who does not changes.

At the moment I play the Iroqouis and have the Americans nearly wiped out! I think I will give them a reservate where they can live.

God I love civ and to be able to change history!

[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.