[Freeciv-Dev] Re: more ai levels

[Daniel Burrows <Daniel_Burrows@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Feb 23, 2000 at 08:15:03AM -0800, Andy Lubbers was heard to say:
> One thing I remember from Civ 2 was that the
> easiest difficulty level was _really_ easy.  I
> think that for introductory players, it would be
> a good idea to have more range in the levels of
> AI, so that they don't get whomped on before 1000
> BC.  And having more levels would make for an
> easier learning curve to develop advanced
> techniques and strategies.
> 
> Just a thought. Keep up the good work!
> 
> Andy Lubbers

  I was thinking about this too, but I think that making the easy AI even
easier is not the thing that's most needed.  A new level between 'easy'
and 'normal' should be added.  The reason is that in my experience, 'easy'
equates roughly to 'passive and braindead' (for example, I just whomped two
easy computer players; they started on a GIGANTIC continent and had only
built a few cities each by the time I arrived with musketeers..), whereas
'normal' equates roughly to 'insane bloodthirsty invincible player-killer'.

  (I have yet to consistently beat the 'normal' AI; if I spend all my effort
to barely keep up with its expansion, it beats me on military production and
science, if I spend all my effort to stay even in science, it expands faster
and crushes me militarily, etc..) [1]

  Daniel

  [1] I think I've come up with a strategy that may have some merit against it:
     namely, delay switching to Republic.  Usually I do this fairly early, but
     I've found that it greatly inhibits expansion and conquest, since units,
     and Settlers in particular, become so incredibly expensive.  I've only
     tested it against the easy AI, though.. [2]

  [2] I've noticed that the computer places its cities a lot closer together
     than I do in general (as a rule, each computer-built city overlaps 2 or 3
     squares of several of its neighbors; I do this occasionally but not nearly
     as much)  Is this a critical strategy issue -- ie, is the game biased in
     favor of lots of little wimpy cities instead of a few powerful ones?
     (I could see this, especially at the beginning, where you can get a lot
     more squares into use in a hurry)

-- 
Put no trust in cryptic comments.