About halfway trough playing SMAC (this, perhaps, goes for upcoming CIV3 and CTP2 as well) i take a quick look at how my computer-controlled competitors have developed their cities and city-areas. I always seem to discover the following SAD state-of-affairs (i´m playing at Thinker-level and upwards, by the way):
1/ I have about TWICE as many city-improvements per city, as any computer-controlled city.
2/ When i have 2 quality defence-units plus 1-2 fast-moving attack-units garrisoned in each city, the computer-controlled cities, by comparison, have wasted both time and resources producing 6-8+ slow-moving “cost-effective” crap-units per city (many of them wandering around aimlessly).
I do not ask for a game-AI that matches Kasparov. I do not ask for the Holy Grail.
I just want an AI that automatically tries to capitalise on any city-improvement-, or any unit-upgrade possibility that an already achieved technology has to offer. Is this too much to ask for?
The list of suggestions for CIV3 for example, is very impressive – but, if no major AI-changes are made, its gonna be like putting a tiny Volkswagen-engine in a large/heavy Rolls Royce.
1/ I have about TWICE as many city-improvements per city, as any computer-controlled city.
2/ When i have 2 quality defence-units plus 1-2 fast-moving attack-units garrisoned in each city, the computer-controlled cities, by comparison, have wasted both time and resources producing 6-8+ slow-moving “cost-effective” crap-units per city (many of them wandering around aimlessly).
I do not ask for a game-AI that matches Kasparov. I do not ask for the Holy Grail.
I just want an AI that automatically tries to capitalise on any city-improvement-, or any unit-upgrade possibility that an already achieved technology has to offer. Is this too much to ask for?
The list of suggestions for CIV3 for example, is very impressive – but, if no major AI-changes are made, its gonna be like putting a tiny Volkswagen-engine in a large/heavy Rolls Royce.
Comment