Civ4 AI Survivor: Season Three

[antisocialmunky]

These are good analysis and why I would be fascinated with an unrestricted leaders game to see which leaders are actually good because there seem to be a lot of bad leaders paired to good civs and vice versa.

[Fluffball]

These are good analysis and why I would be fascinated with an unrestricted leaders game to see which leaders are actually good because there seem to be a lot of bad leaders paired to good civs and vice versa.

You'd need to run AI survivor as a full time job to make any sense out of unrestricted leaders. I'm no good at math but I'm pretty sure the number of possible variables goes up to like 10 digits when you compare how every trait interacts with all the standard AI numbers. Even the way we have it I still think luck is the biggest factor (see: Vicky being shielded by Monty attacking all her enemies to seal her victory, and then for her to blow her victory.)

Edit: Just for fun, what would the ultimate AI be? fin + imp, spi, or org?? The leader would be a low-middle peace weight, medium-low aggressive, medium unit builder, with growth and science flavors ish?

[shallow_thought]

Edit: Just for fun, what would the ultimate AI be? fin + imp, spi, or org?? The leader would be a low-middle peace weight, medium-low aggressive, medium unit builder, with growth and science flavors ish?

It's worth noting that the settings chosen for srurvivor affect which traits are best. I don't know the details, but I assume that Deity for AI is similar to the low levels for a human. That means reduced maintenance costs, which nerfs ORG. Given that the AI builds everything in cities, it might reduce the impact of traits that boost production of "important" buildings (EXP, IND). It might also be that having fewer production advantages for the AI might boost AGG and PRO, as individual units might matter more, particularly against barbs in the early game (although given the number of settlers we've seen lost, I'm not sure the AI gets anti-barb bonuses).

There are excellent reasons to use Deity to set the game pace, but choice of settings adds yet more variance into the mix.

That said, if you really want a pure test of leaders, I guess you put together a mod where all civs had no UU or UB and the same starting techs.

[GreyWolf]

PRO still performed terribly, though.

[yuris125]

That said, if you really want a pure test of leaders, I guess you put together a mod where all civs had no UU or UB and the same starting techs.

Wouldn't the easiest way be to simply play all leaders as the same civ? Choose one with solid but unspectacular uniques, like maybe Ottomans. Or you can always use America, they have above averages starting techs and basically no uniques

[shallow_thought]

That said, if you really want a pure test of leaders, I guess you put together a mod where all civs had no UU or UB and the same starting techs.

Wouldn't the easiest way be to simply play all leaders as the same civ? Choose one with solid but unspectacular uniques, like maybe Ottomans. Or you can always use America, they have above averages starting techs and basically no uniques

Yeah, that would be easier. And would grant the poor old Americans a win!

[Brian Shanahan]

I am just after finishing reading the cap to the season, and I am wondering if we, for a competition, instead of going with an open draw in the first round (where anybody can end up in the same game), have enough data to run some sort of seeding system?

It would likely make the games somewhat more predictable I think, but it may make for a much stronger playoff field.

[dcodea]

It might be fair to have seeding by AI strength, but also grouping by peaceweight - help ensure each playoff game will at least 2 high, 2 low peaceweight

[Axiis]

Edit: Just for fun, what would the ultimate AI be? fin + imp, spi, or org?? The leader would be a low-middle peace weight, medium-low aggressive, medium unit builder, with growth and science flavors ish?

Fin/Imp, 4 peace weight, 7/10 agg, dow at pleased, gold/mil flavor, 6/10 units 4/10 wonders. Basically Caesar but Financial

[Kuro]

I am just after finishing reading the cap to the season, and I am wondering if we, for a competition, instead of going with an open draw in the first round (where anybody can end up in the same game), have enough data to run some sort of seeding system?

It would likely make the games somewhat more predictable I think, but it may make for a much stronger playoff field.

I think it's a lot more fun to have it as an open draw, especially when you consider an extremely low amount of possible combinations have been played. And it feels to me like we're still low on overall sample size, especially given this year had a fair deal of upsets.

Perhaps more importantly, I think a seeding system might kind of force people to stay kinda same-y in where they are, given the matchups they're being put in. And some unpredictable matchups are fun.