Xilmi wrote:I'll do the specialization-thing first.
It's the easiest and at the same time the one that I guess has the greatest overall benefit.
The most important about it is that food and minerals are preferably harvested in cities without any terrain-modifier-bonus on either science or production so that no potentially more efficient scientists have to be working on fields and in mines while other, less suitable scientists do the science.
Basically something like that: If (cityhasterritorysciencebonus) then farmerpriority*=0.9 and minerpriority*=0.9.
Xilmi wrote:If 2 leftover units reach the target they would realize: Well, we are too few to conquer the city, so lets siege it and wait for reinforcements.
ERISS wrote:At least they can be probe, then the AI knows what to really send.
ERISS wrote:Maybe there must not be one best algorythm?
1) The best, with the power of computer, will each time beat a human (see chess): no game.
2) So, you must include defects. The better way is to make several algorythms, having human personalities with their preferences and so their predictability.
3) The difficulty level should make the AI have several strategies/personnalities, to be able to adapt better (so you must have an analysis sytem) or being less predictable once we guessed its pattern.
Xilmi wrote:even though I can very well predict what each AI will do in which situation, I still don't see how I could have benefited from that if they do everything correctly. Much like in chess.
for the easy difficulty. Getting ahead of the AI in terms of research and development on this level is quite easy, which means you are setting yourself up to be disliked.
It might actually be easier to survive on a harder difficulty since as long as you don't pose a meaningful threat to someone else' victory-ambitions,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest