[freeciv-ai] Re: capital on the coast?
[Top] [All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
I doubt a capital on the coast is a real problem until the heavy
sea ships appear, Ironclad at least.
It would be cheaper to move the capital when getting close to this
point, rather than paying the early penalty in development. The
exponential nature of things makes the early edge really significant.
And having early sea access might mean an advantageous expansion to
a nearby island or continent before someone else gets there.
There might be some consideration in weighting the first ring of
tiles negatively if is_coastal is true. This limits the number of
tiles at which an invasion force can be landed and then attack. If
too many are left open, the number of offensive defenders needs to
be bumped to knock them all off, and double move units can get in
a first swipe.
Also, hill starters are bad for trade, and thus early tech gains.
A river grassland is really quite good as there is some defence
lots or food and trade, plus it allows movement across the river
at road rates - all *very* important considerations in the early
stages. Its drawback is you need to block the up/downstream
approaches (i.e. with other cities) to prevent river movement
At 12:37 AM 02/11/28 +0000, Per I. Mathisen wrote:
>I'm reading some pitfighting logs, and notice some battles being lost
>by an AI that has had the upper hand all the game long, because it loses
>its capital. After that, it is all downhill. That made me wonder -
>shouldn't we strongly discourage it from putting its capital on the coast?
>And maybe on a defensive position (hill/river)?
>That might make it get a worse start, though.
>(I don't know if these capitals were on the coast or not. The logs don't
> - Per
|[Prev in Thread]
||[Next in Thread]|
- [freeciv-ai] Re: capital on the coast?,
Ross W. Wetmore <=