r_rolo1
It's really hard to rebut your case. But I try to do it in one point: let's suppose that "going mad" plan applied not to situations of "increasing the odds of a certain AI player winning the game" but only to subset of situations (little probably) when there is already nothing to lose because game actually lost for the AI. In that case doing something instead of doing nothing if not increasing chances of victory would at least make winner little busy. Little of "Hitler in the bunker" I mean
To resume, I'm not saying to tell the AI players to not go burn something to stop a enemy win ... I'm just saying that it might be hard to pull a mechanism that works better than the current "do nothing" aproach, atleast in terms of increasing the odds of a certain AI player winning the game by using that mechanism.
It's really hard to rebut your case. But I try to do it in one point: let's suppose that "going mad" plan applied not to situations of "increasing the odds of a certain AI player winning the game" but only to subset of situations (little probably) when there is already nothing to lose because game actually lost for the AI. In that case doing something instead of doing nothing if not increasing chances of victory would at least make winner little busy. Little of "Hitler in the bunker" I mean