is there an actual difference between the civ3 ai leaders?

[Barshy]

I am starting to doubt whether there is really any difference in any of the AI civ leaders. The only thing I have actually noticed is aggression levels, but other than that, what difference is there? I think some players will say "Egypt is always ____" but I think that is more b/c of coincidence of map placement rather than anything real.

For example, Soren said he programmed each civ's leader differently, Elizabeth is "crafty", Ghandi is peaceful...

This brings another thing I have with complex strategy games-- if a lot of time and effort is put into the details of a game, you can only be rewarded if you show HOW those details play off each otehr in the game. Right now it does not matter to me at all what civs i'm being placed next to.

For example, if a civ supposedly likes democratic civs, then they should say every once in a while that they do (like in SMAC). If they supposedly like civs that are of their culture (like Rome and Greece) then they should indicate that that is playing a factor in their attitude towards you..

In MOO3, that is a game with a TON of detail and where they will actualyl let you see how those details work. I just wish civ3 were the same way...


Anyway please repond to this post if you have really --- i mean, REALLY (not just based on 2 games) seen any diffs between the civ leaders....

[Padmewan]

My first Civ game was SMAC and I loved the AI personalities. They weren't always consistent, but conceptually, at least, it was neat that, for example, the Believers and the University would try to wipe each other out whenever they got next to each other.

It was also cool that if you were allied with a faction's enemy, that would hurt your relations with that faction. Since there are only MPP's in Civ3, that aspect isn't available.

I've only played about 5 games so far, and I've only seen France wipe out England and China -- which is consistent with the French-English rivalry, but not with the French commercial / industriousness.

Anyone else have any evidence of AI personalities?

[Pyrodrew]

Well, the editor clearly shows the English like to build Naval units, the Zulus for offensive land units, etc. which must have some impact. As for unique personalities, I also notice France attacking the English on my games.

I believe Soren when he said he programmed a few distinct traits in "some" AI Civs. Yet, their "unique personalities" are faint & often seem overpowered by a general AI thinking process. I had no problems getting Gandhi to go to war against someone else & for only 5gold/turn more than the Babylonians (who have an Aggressiveness of 4)... and I asked Gandhi 1st so he wasn't joining in on a "me too" feeding frenzy.

Worse is it seems the AI Civs ALL have the same priorities for researching technologies. And since there is no priority value or military/peaceful modifier for the technologies in the editor or elsewhere (unlike Civ2) there seems to be very little variation in what they research. This allows a player to abuse the tech brokering problem even more.

For example, if a civ supposedly likes democratic civs, then they should say every once in a while that they do (like in SMAC). If they supposedly like civs that are of their culture (like Rome and Greece) then they should indicate that that is playing a factor in their attitude towards you.

Agreed, that would be great see.

[old dog]

[SIZE=1] Worse is it seems the AI Civs ALL have the same priorities for researching technologies. And since there is no priority value or military/peaceful modifier for the technologies in the editor or elsewhere (unlike Civ2) there seems to be very little variation in what they research. This allows a player to abuse the tech brokering problem even more.

Much as I enjoy the game, I think this is near the top of a short list of serious weaknesses. Not only does this encourage the human player to do osme odd things, but it pushes you to use the same strategy game after game.