I was watching an AI autoplay for playtesting, and I noticed that AI's hardly ever raze cities, even when it would be a very very sensible thing to do (such as in the ancient/classical period when a far-away city will be ungovernable). But instead the AI insists on trying to cling onto such cities, and as a result, it is beset with revolution after revolution.
For this reason, you can pretty much predict, I find, that the successful AI's are going to be the ones who manage to snag some wonders in the early game. Because the conquering AI's, although possibly initially successful and initially helping their empire stability with capturing cities, end up making their empires more unstable because they insist on trying to cling to cities instead of just razing them, taking the gold and stability bonus, and moving along.
For this reason, optimum AI play is a little 1-dimensional for the early game: build wonders. It is fairly easy to predict that the civs who build wonders (or who happen to get placed near stone or marble) are going to lead in the game. I think it would be nice if every game weren't as predictable and pre-determined, and if the warmongers could have a decent shot by being taught how to not bog themselves down in endless revolutions. (As as a result, unless Mansa Musa or some wonder-spammer is in the game, the AI global tech rate slows to a craaaaaaawl and wonders start going really late. In the game that I'm AI-autoplay testing (on noble), the leader, Suryavarman, is just now researching military science...in 1960).
So, what if, when the AI conquers a city, if it checks the RevIndex to see what the expected RevIndex rate might be like. If it's anything over +50 or so, the AI should seriously consider just razing the city (perhaps taking other things into account, like shrines/buildings/wonders, etc.) Would this be possible?
For this reason, you can pretty much predict, I find, that the successful AI's are going to be the ones who manage to snag some wonders in the early game. Because the conquering AI's, although possibly initially successful and initially helping their empire stability with capturing cities, end up making their empires more unstable because they insist on trying to cling to cities instead of just razing them, taking the gold and stability bonus, and moving along.
For this reason, optimum AI play is a little 1-dimensional for the early game: build wonders. It is fairly easy to predict that the civs who build wonders (or who happen to get placed near stone or marble) are going to lead in the game. I think it would be nice if every game weren't as predictable and pre-determined, and if the warmongers could have a decent shot by being taught how to not bog themselves down in endless revolutions. (As as a result, unless Mansa Musa or some wonder-spammer is in the game, the AI global tech rate slows to a craaaaaaawl and wonders start going really late. In the game that I'm AI-autoplay testing (on noble), the leader, Suryavarman, is just now researching military science...in 1960).
So, what if, when the AI conquers a city, if it checks the RevIndex to see what the expected RevIndex rate might be like. If it's anything over +50 or so, the AI should seriously consider just razing the city (perhaps taking other things into account, like shrines/buildings/wonders, etc.) Would this be possible?