[Freeciv-Dev] Re: AI strategy

[Raimar Falke <hawk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Dec 02, 2001 at 05:22:44AM -0800, Raahul Kumar wrote:
> 
> --- Petr Baudis <pasky@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > I suspect that having a reserve force of attacking units rather than
> > settlers
> > > would work well too. The AI builds far too many defensive units. 
> > I don't think so. AI will be still overmilitaristic, expansionistic is 
> > better
> > IMHO. I prefer settlers more than attack units, as they can generally
> > increase
> > food (irrigation), production (mines) and trade (roads), and all this at 
> > once
> > (building of new city). Attack units can't. They can only conquer foreign
> > cities, with much more effort put in than just building settler and 
> > deploying
> > new city around.
> 
> The AI has only one function in life, and that is to make single player games
> exciting. The only way to do that is military conquest, the AI expands fine as
> is. Curently, when I am attacking an AI opponent, they rarely attack the bases
> (the cities I took from the AI). They just build/buy a lot of defensive units,
> when for less than half the cost in offensive units, they could wipe out my
> foothold.
> 
> There is a use for reserve settlers, but 1/3 is far too many settler units.
> Settler units after a certain no have less and less utility. Once everything 
> is
> railroad and irrigated you need far fewer settlers.
> 
> 
> There is no reason a complete client side AI could not be built. Raimar?

(uhuh double negation). I see no general problems building a complete
client side AI. Smaller problems include cheating (how to allow it),
extra bandwidth usage and extra complexity (spawning civbot).

        Raimar

-- 
 email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  "With a PC, I always felt limited by the software available.
   On Unix, I am limited by my knowledge."
    -- Peter J. Schoenster <pschon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>