A Better AI.

[Roland Johansen]

I disagree. At higher levels the AI has a stronger economy because it grows faster builds infrastructure faster techs faster (etc), the AI is VERY good at adpating to bad happiness and stuff now, in fact it should pretty much always focus on whatever aspect of it's economy is weakest, this means it can adapt to added expenses or added unhappiness in a way it once couldn't (or at least not effectively). Making the AI feel some pressure in certain areas can also help to direct it's development - rather than playing in a total economic sandbox - the AI is now adaptive enough that it doesn't NEED the sandbox.

While this does mean the AI can no longer flash-upgrade it's entire army the AI doesn't have a problem with finding "other" ways to recycle it's units such as mass zerg attacks on cities. The AI has no compulsion to raise cash until all of it's units are upgraded, it tries to upgrade some with petty cash and will mass upgrade after a cash boon (a cash bomb will be worth ~30-50 units) but it wont go to 100%g to upgrade units and thus it's economy wont be crippled by the presence of a mass of obsolete units. The only difference is that it'll have more obsolete units around for longer, which is basically what people want - no instant upgrade of the ENTIRE army.

It's very good to hear that the AI is more adaptive to certain situations and can change its economy to fix its problems.

But when comparing the levels of economic development between a deity level AI and a noble level AI for this purpose, you should compare them at the moment that they develop a technology that allows them to upgrade their army (like Feudalism for the archer->longbowman upgrade). And at that moment, they will have similar buildings in their cities and similar development of their land (technology research speed and building speed gets similar handicap bonusses). So the main advantage for the deity level AI is the lower city and civic upkeep costs. And that won't cover the extra expenses of a much larger army that needs to be upgraded.

Personally, I think a 5% upgrade cost at deity level is too low, it's too cheap to upgrade. But I also think that if the deity AI has an army that is three times as large as a noble level AI, then the deity level AI should have an upgrade cost of one third of the noble upgrade cost (so 1/3 of 50%, 15% or 20% would be ok).

In civ3 most people hated the fact that the AI never seemed to upgrade its units. There were a lot of complaints about this issue. Of course these complaints are now gone as the AI in civ4 upgrades very quickly. But when we go back to a situation where the AI doesn't upgrade a large section of its army, then those complaints will come back.

By the way, the AI upgrades for half the human cost in your suggested handicap setting, so that means 1.5 gold per hammer difference in unit building cost plus a small nominal fee (12.5) for a unit upgrade. That's an upgrade cost at which it should upgrade its army. It will be far more expensive to rebuild it than to upgrade it because it is far easier to obtain gold then it is to obtain hammers. In the late game the universal suffrage civic allows one to rush buy for 3 gold per hammer and even this ability is considered bordering on overpowered by some (me included). So if the AI doesn't upgrade for 1.5 gold per hammer but rebuilds the units, then it is wasting resources. It shouldn't waste obsolete units in a war when it can upgrade them.

By the way people, this changes in the handicap were more about what HE thought was better for the whole scene. This deffenetelly DONT need to go togheter with the DLL if you dont want to(as far as I know). And also, you can really easily change it yourself.

Thank you for saying that .

I agree with that statement. I really don't want to say what you should do with this mod. I really only want the best for this mod and I just don't think this is such a great idea. But it is your mod. I personally am perfectly capable of changing the settings in the CIV4HandicapInfo.xml in two minutes or so.

I'm also going to quote someone from another thread:

When the AI mass upgraded, I actually wanted to find Blake and throw him out the window too for making the AI so much better at production while leaving its upgrade cheats in. This is not fun, or balanced.

I do live on the first floor of a building so the fall would not be harmful but I recognized uberfish's point as being a very valid one.

Can't make everyone happy can only use my judgment to the best of my ability.

I also don't want you thrown out of a building, really.

What about the AI war weariness at the higher levels. The more units will lead to heavier losses and thus more war weariness. It has nothing to do with economy (mwah, except using the culture slider for happiness but you don't want to do that too often). I do again think that the war weariness setting for the AI should be scaled to the size of its army.

 

[jkp1187]

New Build 1/8, we are now feature complete and pushing toward our 1.0 release.



Decreased the chance of Spearmen being trained.


-Iustus

Was there a problem with too many spearmen being trained? I can't think of an instance where I noticed it in any of my games.

 

[jkp1187]

If an offer is a good deal, it's a good deal no matter the religion differences (or other negative modifiers).

The effect this would have is to make it possible to overcome past negative modifiers. That might have implications that need to be considered, such as to be able to force a totally peaceful game. However, with the AI capable of declaring war no matter the + modifiers, this may be a moot point.

I disagree with the spirit of what you're saying. The 'seemingly irrational' behavior is part of human history, and, I think it would take something away from the game. Right now, unless you declare war repeatedly on an AI, adopting its favorite religion or civic (coupled with giving in to one or two of its demands,) can reduce the impact of the negatives. I think that AI "relationship management", if you will, should not be touched.

Your post reminded me of a line from that old "Vietnam: A Television History" documentary from PBS...thanks to some quick searching, I found it (worth seeing for those who have an interest in the VN War):

Spoiler :

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/vietnam/series/pt_03.html

NARRATOR: A U.S. president, for the first time, had authorized ground troops for offensive operations in Vietnam. Their patrols were limited to a 50-mile radius of coastal bases. Johnson was moving with caution. But these additional troops -- and their expanded role -- were also designed to show Ho Chi Minh his determination. Five days after he committed them, Johnson made Ho an offer.

PRESIDENT LYNDON B. JOHNSON at Johns Hopkins University:
The vast Mekong River can provide food and water and power on a scale to dwarf even our own T.V.A.

NARRATOR: Johnson offered Ho a vast development project to benefit all of Southeast Asia if Ho would abandon his goals.

PRESIDENT LYNDON B. JOHNSON: And we remain ready with this purpose, for unconditional discussions.

BILL MOYERS: Coming back in the helicopter from that speech in 1965 at Johns Hopkins University -- where he had promised a T.V.A. for the Mekong valley, if only Ho Chi Minh would be reasonable -- he leaned across to an assistant, put his hand on his knee, and said, "Old Ho can't turn that down. Old Ho can't turn that down." You see, if Ho Chi Minh had been George Meany, Lyndon Johnson would have had a deal.

 

[darrelljs]

While I understand that this must be frustrating, I would like to point out that the changes proposed by Blake for his next build are not going to change anything about the war weariness aspect of what you're describing.

War weariness is related to winning and losing battles in areas where another culture is stronger than yours (so normally inside the territory of an AI). So whether you're playing at deity level or at settler level, the destruction of massive amounts of foreign units and capture of their cities in their territory will only result in war weariness for you and not for the AI.

Well, at the higher levels you are usually better off declaring war and handling the incoming AI stacks on your terms before taking the attack to the enemy. In this situation, the fact that the AI doesn't suffer WW is pretty bogus.

Darrell

 

[darrelljs]

Personally, I think a 5% upgrade cost at deity level is too low, it's too cheap to upgrade. But I also think that if the deity AI has an army that is three times as large as a noble level AI, then the deity level AI should have an upgrade cost of one third of the noble upgrade cost (so 1/3 of 50%, 15% or 20% would be ok).

I don't know why I didn't understand this suggestion from your original post, but now I do. It is true that the Deity AI's production bonus will lead to a larger army, but it is also true that their commerce bonus (not to mention upkeep discounts) will give them sufficient funds to upgrade that large army in a reasonable timeframe, if they deem it important. Well, at least I think so. It strikes me that Firaxis probably had a reason for the insane discounts, and I'm sure that they would be willing to answer questions to Blake at least if not publicly on a forum.

Anyway, I still think the best solution is to have the AI properly use its cash reserve, upgrading when it makes sense, running deficit research when it makes sense, etc.

Darrell

 

[Roland Johansen]

Well, at the higher levels you are usually better off declaring war and handling the incoming AI stacks on your terms before taking the attack to the enemy. In this situation, the fact that the AI doesn't suffer WW is pretty bogus.

Darrell

I can understand that you slaughtering AI units and the AI not getting war weariness can feel wrong. The game rules are so that you only get war weariness from battles in foreign cultural areas and don't get war weariness from battles in your cultural area. While simplistic and not very accurate, they do function in limiting aggressive war and not limiting defensive war.

I don't think that Blake will change these rules quickly, but you'd have to ask him that.

I don't know why I didn't understand this suggestion from your original post, but now I do. It is true that the Deity AI's production bonus will lead to a larger army, but it is also true that their commerce bonus (not to mention upkeep discounts) will give them sufficient funds to upgrade that large army in a reasonable timeframe, if they deem it important. Well, at least I think so. It strikes me that Firaxis probably had a reason for the insane discounts, and I'm sure that they would be willing to answer questions to Blake at least if not publicly on a forum.

Anyway, I still think the best solution is to have the AI properly use its cash reserve, upgrading when it makes sense, running deficit research when it makes sense, etc.

Darrell

At Immortal level, the AI researches at 125% rate and gets a 20% discount on building stuff (normal buildings and units) and a 20% discount on food needed for city growth. This means that it will also build and grow at a rate of 125% (1/0.8=1.25).

If you look at these numbers very simplistic (maybe a bit too simplistic), then the immortal level AI will reach an upgrade technology (such as feudalism) 1.25 as fast. It might have build a few extra buildings but not many more because it didn't have the time. It will also have build more units compared to the noble level AI. There is no commerce bonus for the AI, only what the extra buildings might provide. A city that produces 20 commerce for you will produce 20 commerce for the AI if it captures it. So it has to upgrade its units with a similar economy and at the same price as the noble level AI (using Blake's suggested handicaps). Only it has far more units.

 

[Roland Johansen]

I had noticed some strange things with the governor the last few days but couldn't pinpoint what happened. I would set a city at using certain tiles using the governor and emphasizing something (gold, hammers, food) and when I came back a few turns later, I would find that the city was using a few specialists. This was without the city growing or adding improvements. I didn't want the specialists so I changed it back, sometimes disabling the governor to get the right tiles used. However, I didn't detect a pattern in what had happened untill now.

I've attached two screenshots. In the first one you see a governor controlled city with emphasize commerce and the science-gold rate at 100% gold. It is using the tiles that I want it to use. In the second screenshot, I changed the science-gold rate to 100% science and the city has disabled a plains mine and a farmed grassland to enable two scientists. Hmm, that's not what I wanted. I of course change it back.

But often I will change my science rate without checking every single one of my cities for the consequences it might have on the tiles that I use. And thus some tile uses will switch to something that I do not want. If I want to use specialists, I can switch them on myself while still enabling the governor. I would never want the governor to choose the specialists that I use. I want to pick them myself to go for a certain type of great person and in almost every other case, I do not want the specialist.

Will I be forced to leave the governor off?

Why exactly was this added to the game. Does it somehow help the AI?

100% gold.JPG
100% research.JPG

 

[BenniusCaesar]

are these on top of the AI improvements in the patch?

 

[bolt144]

I believe Iustus was asking for anyone with game errors to post the saves. Here are 4 files from the same game where OOS errors happened twice over 30 minutes time with the 1/1 build. Once at 1676 AD and another at 1694 AD. It was a 2 Human player, 6 AI player game over a Direct IP Internet connection. I don't know if the problems have been fixed in 1/8 since I didn't see any mention of OOS issues, but for what it is worth, here they are. We did have a few OOS problems back in November, though when the 12/12 build came out, it seemed pretty solid and we didn't have them again. Never had a chance to try the 12/21 build. The 1/1 build is when we noticed them happening again.

Many thanks to all of you that have worked on this. It is awesome!

 

[The M'Hael]

are these on top of the AI improvements in the patch?

Yes, they have been improved a lot since then!

The M'Hael

 

[Polycrates]

Just been playing the 1/1 build, monarch level, with Monty, and Aggressive AI wasn't on. I was doing my normal worker/warrior build to open up with, and a couple of turns before I finished my warrior, Shaka suddenly declared war with me and moved an archer into my territory next to my lone, undefended city (this was about 3000BC, and neither of us had a religion). A hastily-built warrior couldn't hold the fort and I suffered my earliest defeat. It was seriously the greatest thing, because I've always thought it was kinda rubbish that you could leave your cities undefended for so long and not worry about the kind of AI opportunism that a human would engage in within a split second. And it means now I'll be paranoid about early defence, and might occasionally bother researching archery.
The very next game, Shaka was a neighbour again, and he declared war on Brennus sometime around the 2500BC mark (though I don't think there was the slightest chance of taking a city). I love this kind of AI vs AI aggression, and I love the early aggression too! Reminds me of the good old days of "Hi I'm Corazon Santiago, nice to meet you, prepare for war", when you had to be on your toes right from the word go.
Anyway, very cool, thanks for all your great work!

 

[skankerm]

the new build is great, i can play multiplayer again past 500ad. Two things, one the scout and blue circles which was stated earlier, it kinda funny i though i was exploring with a settler when i first saw it and during a game there was a Great Merchant from isabella who was walking around my area when I didn't have open borders with her. I was at war some turns before but was at peace at the time. I dont remember if great merchants can wander around or not w/out open borders cause i hardly ever get them but i dont think they can. Otherwise speed is good. Got that sludge out of the betterai engine.

edit:
here is a screenshot and save

 

[sveint]

A few early comments on the January 8 build.

The AIs seem to build alot of city defenders early on, almost too many. For the first time I was not last in score during the first turns.

Is asking the AI to declare war bugged? Not a single war so far in my game, and if I try to ask them to declare war on each other they all say "We have enough on our hands right now". It certainly doesn't feel right, 3 different state religions on my continent too.

 

[cf_nz]

If you can post a zip with your sourcefiles...

Source files as requested, all my changes including BetterAI rev 254.

Your changes including things which modify the save file format, so I cannot investigate this crash.

Out of curiosity, what sort of changes will cause save game incompatibility?

 

[jkp1187]

I dont remember if great merchants can wander around or not w/out open borders cause i hardly ever get them but i dont think they can.

Yes, I have done this repeatedly on Warlords 2.08. I forget when the change was made. I presume it's not a bug -- it gives you a fighting chance to cash in your merchants even if you don't have open borders.

 

[Tacit_Exit]

a Great Merchant from isabella who was walking around my area when I didn't have open borders with her.

I think Great Merchants have the 'explore rival territory' ability in the non-enhanced game (at least my Warlords manual says so), so this would not be a bug.

 

[Blake]

I've attached two screenshots. In the first one you see a governor controlled city with emphasize commerce and the science-gold rate at 100% gold. It is using the tiles that I want it to use. In the second screenshot, I changed the science-gold rate to 100% science and the city has disabled a plains mine and a farmed grassland to enable two scientists. Hmm, that's not what I wanted. I of course change it back.

In short the Better AI governor has the view that "Commerce is Commerce is Commerce" and only looks at the final science, gold and culture - if you turn on "build research" he'll pick a scientist over a 3h mine (assuming you have say a library but not a forge, if you have a forge but no library he'll pick the mine because it produces more beakers). my problem is that I have a hard time condoing the governor working say 5c tile when it could be generating 6b with a rep specialist. Your problem is that the governor is doing exactly what you are asking him to - you ask him to emphasize commerce alone and he does it, even if that's not what you want. It's everyone's problem that there is not a sophisticated specialist management system.

Here are the yield values on normal settings:
Food = 1-4096*, Hammers** = 15, Commerce = 5
* depends on things like starvation!
** if training a worker/settler food is valued the same as hammers

On emphasis settings:
Food = 180*, Hammers = 95**, Commerce = 45
* no longer depends on things like starvation!
** if training a worker/settler food is valued the same as hammers

If you emphasize hammers alone, then 1h is worth 19c... if you emphasize commerce alone then 1c is worth 3h...

As to why it varies via slider setting that's a little complicated but it comes down to a system in place to accurately calculate how much commerce is worth - it thus wont care much to assign a scientist (if it could assign a merchant, it would), there is also an assumption in place that your slider settings says something about what you value.

// if emp all commerce, then value based on the player's commerce percent

I haven't yet removed that assumption and made all commerce valued equally in part because Iustus appears to get annoyed when I go around changing his stuff willy-nilly and in part because I'm not exactly sure what the emphasis commerce button should do.
Regardless in this case at 100% research the scientist's output is counted as emphasized (45 per commerce) while at 100% gold the research output is counted as normal commerce (5 per commerce). I lean towards the slider setting acting as a tie-breaker between scientists and merchants.


In your screenshots I suggest that if you want the governor working the mine and farm, you probably shouldn't have emphasize commerce on. What, you ask him to emp commerce and he proceeds to do it and then you complain? .

It is worth noting that the AI *does not need the emphasis buttons anymore*, I wrote a whole new system for the AI which is more flexible, this means the way the emphasis buttons work for the human can be changed without harming the AI - but there are many, many, many, many, many issues (approximately as many as CIV players) - some people want the emphasis buttons to mean "Maximize this or I'll shoot you" others want it to act as a tie breaker, others want a happy compromise (I'm sure almost everyone wants more precise control!). Incidentally I take a stanch somewhere between "Doit or I shoot" and compromise...

My personal bias when it comes to GP is that I don't mind a bit of GP salad, what I prefer is that the governor always maximizes yields (like if I turn on build research, I expect specialists to be used in place of lower yield hammer tiles, even if emp production is on). I may not be above putting a small negative value on GPP (under certain circumstances?) which could be overridden by the Emphasize Great People button.

Here is one idea:
If the city has 0% accumulated probability of any Great Person then put a large negative value on specialists, don't penalize if there is already accumulated GP probability of the specialists type - so a city with no gpp investment would wait patiently and ignore specialists, but if you toggle on a specialist for a turn the gov takes that as direction and after that the specialist type is fair game (until the gp is born and resets the probabilities to 0). Problems/gotchas being: Artist national wonders, assigning a scientist for just a turn to get a tech a turn faster, etc, etc... there's other possible ways too but all will have gotchas for people who don't know how it works....

 

[Uncle_Joe]

I just completed my first game with the 1/8 build (Isabella, modified difficulty, Standard, Epic, 7 Civs). It was my first 'peaceful' game ever. I never fought a war. Ragnar did eliminate Wang Kon fairly early (before Medieval), but I was never attacked and there didnt seem to be much conflict on the other continent either (but I believe they were mostly the same religion).

The AI gave me a run for my money with the Space Race this time. I had a good start and with no wars to distract me I was able to cruise through Industrial, again racking up all of the Wonders. But Kublai Khan beat me to the Apollo Project and I had to drop everything and rush to win the Victory. I beat him out fairly badly but he made the old college try!

I would say a definate step in the right direction! Some random observations:

1) Slow-down is gone...even late in the game the turns moved quickly.

2) AI defender over spam is still present and might be slowing it down a bit when at extended peace. If the AI has been at peace for a long time and/or has good relations with neighbors perhaps it can relax on building the piles of units?

3) At 50% upgrade cost for AI, some AIs still had Longbows and Muskets even into the Modern Age (alongside their Infantry). Perhaps have the AI disband completely obsolete troops if it doesnt have the cash to upgrade them? They provide next to no defense and simply drag on the econ.

4) Is it possible to not give Barbarian cities the same 'defender spam' ability? There were still Barbarian cities on the other continent until the end of the game. Perhaps the mass defenses are hurting the AIs' ability to expand over Barbarian lands?

5) When moving ships there was always a blue circle somewhere in it's movement range (often in unexplored territory etc). My guess is that its some sort of AI routine that is being displayed in error.

Great job on this build though. There might be some bugs here and there but overall it plays a pretty good game. I'm looking forward to being in the middle of a pile of AIs next time and seeing how it makes use of the new war routines.

 

[Roland Johansen]

First of all, thank you for this lengthy information. It is always nice to see a bit of how the game really works.

In short the Better AI governor has the view that "Commerce is Commerce is Commerce" and only looks at the final science, gold and culture - if you turn on "build research" he'll pick a scientist over a 3h mine (assuming you have say a library but not a forge, if you have a forge but no library he'll pick the mine because it produces more beakers). my problem is that I have a hard time condoing the governor working say 5c tile when it could be generating 6b with a rep specialist. Your problem is that the governor is doing exactly what you are asking him to - you ask him to emphasize commerce alone and he does it, even if that's not what you want. It's everyone's problem that there is not a sophisticated specialist management system.

Here are the yield values on normal settings:
Food = 1-4096*, Hammers** = 15, Commerce = 5
* depends on things like starvation!
** if training a worker/settler food is valued the same as hammers

Hammers get multiplied by things like forges, food does not. But I guess that is taken into account when building workers and settlers.
I personally value commerce a bit higher than 1/3 of a hammer, more like 1/2 of a hammer.

On emphasis settings:
Food = 180*, Hammers = 95**, Commerce = 45
* no longer depends on things like starvation!
** if training a worker/settler food is valued the same as hammers

If you emphasize hammers alone, then 1h is worth 19c... if you emphasize commerce alone then 1c is worth 3h...

These values must have taken quite some thinking and experimentation.

As to why it varies via slider setting that's a little complicated but it comes down to a system in place to accurately calculate how much commerce is worth - it thus wont care much to assign a scientist (if it could assign a merchant, it would), there is also an assumption in place that your slider settings says something about what you value.

I haven't yet removed that assumption and made all commerce valued equally in part because Iustus appears to get annoyed when I go around changing his stuff willy-nilly and in part because I'm not exactly sure what the emphasis commerce button should do.
Regardless in this case at 100% research the scientist's output is counted as emphasized (45 per commerce) while at 100% gold the research output is counted as normal commerce (5 per commerce). I lean towards the slider setting acting as a tie-breaker between scientists and merchants.

Now, why would he get annoyed at that.

For me there is no connection at all between the slider and the settings that I want in one specific city. The one is a global thing, the other a local. If I locally have a bigger multiplyer on gold/science (from library/market), then I would rather have a merchant/scientist as it would lead to a bigger total output. If I emphasize commerce, I would like it to value science as much as gold. There's really no difference between the two as one can exchange one for the other by changing the science/tax slider.

In your screenshots I suggest that if you want the governor working the mine and farm, you probably shouldn't have emphasize commerce on. What, you ask him to emp commerce and he proceeds to do it and then you complain? .

As I didn't expect the slider to have an effect on which tiles a city picks, I was surprised by the change. I don't see one of the screenshot situations as a bad choise from the governor AI. I just didn't expect a different choise from the governor based on the slider. I didn't pick the standard governor (without emphasizing) because it preferred the unimproved plains forest tiles above the cottaged tiles and I didn't want that.

It is worth noting that the AI *does not need the emphasis buttons anymore*, I wrote a whole new system for the AI which is more flexible, this means the way the emphasis buttons work for the human can be changed without harming the AI - but there are many, many, many, many, many issues (approximately as many as CIV players) - some people want the emphasis buttons to mean "Maximize this or I'll shoot you" others want it to act as a tie breaker, others want a happy compromise (I'm sure almost everyone wants more precise control!). Incidentally I take a stanch somewhere between "Doit or I shoot" and compromise...

My personal bias when it comes to GP is that I don't mind a bit of GP salad, what I prefer is that the governor always maximizes yields (like if I turn on build research, I expect specialists to be used in place of lower yield hammer tiles, even if emp production is on). I may not be above putting a small negative value on GPP (under certain circumstances?) which could be overridden by the Emphasize Great People button.

Here is one idea:
If the city has 0% accumulated probability of any Great Person then put a large negative value on specialists, don't penalize if there is already accumulated GP probability of the specialists type - so a city with no gpp investment would wait patiently and ignore specialists, but if you toggle on a specialist for a turn the gov takes that as direction and after that the specialist type is fair game (until the gp is born and resets the probabilities to 0). Problems/gotchas being: Artist national wonders, assigning a scientist for just a turn to get a tech a turn faster, etc, etc... there's other possible ways too but all will have gotchas for people who don't know how it works....

That's a nice idea and I don't think the negatives are really that bad. Sounds good.

What would be the negatives of this idea:

The governor doesn't consider specialists in its optimization code for the output of the city until you click the emphasize great person button. The emphasize great person button wouldn't increase the value of specialists in this optimization algorithm. It would just count them as the amount of resources that they provide (scientist = 3 science). Without the button pressed, specialists have a value of 0.

If you really want more specialists than the amount that would be optimal for the production of the city, then you can manually add them (yellow border around them, force specialist). If you really want more than what is optimal for production of the city, then you are clearly aiming for a great person. Usually when you're aiming for a great person, you'd want to influence the type anyway and thus pick the specialists yourself. (I personally never want specialists that are not forced, but I'm not the standard.)

The logic behind this is that you can now choose in each city whether you want specialist and thus great persons or not. 'Emphasize great person' should in this case be renamed to 'allow specialists'.

 

[phungus420]

OK Better AI team, you have made this game incredibly more fun, entertaining and challenging. I have yet to try the 1/8 build, but the 1/1 build (minus the baiting and slow down bugs) were pretty much complete for warlords in my humble opinion.

I am still curious though, for beyond the 1.0 version (which I suspect is 2-3 builds away) is there any chance that this will continue beyond save game compatability to give the AI a forward and rear thinking capability so it can go for a domination win? Or after 1.0 is this excellent project complete?