This is the mail archive of the
xconq7@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the Xconq project.
Re: AI now goes after bases
- From: Hans Ronne <hronne at comhem dot se>
- To: Peter Garrone <pgarrone at acay dot com dot au>
- Cc: xconq7 at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 15:45:03 +0100
- Subject: Re: AI now goes after bases
- References: <l03130300bc1bf50bc769@[212.181.162.155]><Pine.LNX.4.44.0312311340460.31528-100000@leon.phy.cmich.edu><200312310601.hBV61LY11369@panix5.panix.com><Pine.LNX.4.44.0312311340460.31528-100000@leon.phy.cmich.edu><l03130300bc1bf50bc769@[212.181.162.155]>
>On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 06:09:06AM +0100, Hans Ronne wrote:
>> >I dont see much benefit from saying cities are more important than
>> >mobile units, by a factor of 10. If an opponent were composed entirely
>> >of cities, it would be an easy job to defeat them, so it cannot be said
>> >that cities are more important than mobile units.
>>
>> I disagree. In most games cities (or more specifically any units that can
>> build other units) are easily 10 times more important than any mobile
>> units. Provided, of course that new units are built at a reasonable rate.
>
>Depends on the time frame. If a battle is going to be over before even a
>single unit is built, then a city isnt very important.
That's what I meant by a reasonable rate. In the roman game, where building
is slow, cities are less important for that reason (though still important
for other reasons). In the standard or advances games, the side that has
most cities will usually win.
Hans