But if the AI's bonus is reduced to a more manageable level, then the need for that 'pre-emptive strike' is obviated.
Sorry for the delay in responding. Had a weekend trip.
Anyway, I think we're still not quite on the same page. By "AI bonus" (above) I think you're talking about the handicaps. Which, for those who install the Better Handicaps (separate mod, available on SourceForge along with the BetterAI mod), will cut back on AI production and AI economic bonuses on higher levels.
But, look at what we're talking about here. You're saying basically "throw out all the improvements made since 2.08 except for bug fixes". (Correct me if I'm wrong.)
Such improvements include better citizen management, better unit movement / tactics, etc. These have nothing to do with the handicap bonuses and definitely have an effect upon the AI research rate etc.
So, to repeat my assertion.... This clearly is a situation where the AI will perform research (etc) faster and better than before. Therefore, if you don't attack, then you are leaving the AI to its strength, and it will do better than it would have with the previous algorithms.
The whole point of attacking the AI (and exploiting its weakness at warfare) is a pre-emptive strategy, not a reactive one. (That's why high-level players swear by early rushing.)
Therefore, I maintain that improving the AI military management MUST remain a goal. If the biggest weakess of the AI is military, then ALL players are de facto encouraged to adopt a military strategy, because that is the surest and best way to succeed and do well in the game.
I'll also repeat my caveat... I think the current BetterAI doesn't quite meet this goal. The huge garrison stacks aren't what we want and need to improve Civ's gameplay. So,
I agree with you, Uncle Joe.
Is your suggestion better (go back to 2.08 AI with bugfixes only)? Beats me. However, I personally would prefer to throw my vote for the BetterAI team to spend their limited time fixing the deficiencies, rather than "punting", "going back to square one", "throwing the baby out with the bathwater", or whatever idiom floats your boat.
And that is folly I see in the strategy...its not going to possible to WIN the game that early (unless on Pangea). So mortgaging the future to win a few wars is not an effective strategy. You'll eventually run out of steam and be left in the dust.
In order for this AI to work and not convert the game into a simple wargame, there is going to have to be a LOT of moderation put in here. The AIs should not commit to all-out attacks, particularly early in the game. It detrimental to gameplay and to the AI doing it even if it succeeds.
I think there other options available than the only one you present.
Let's look at what humans do. They might adopt an early all-out attack, sure. They often do. However, a human is smart enough to know when to stop. Go for it, cripple your opponent, take a few cities, but don't waste time butting heads against the enemy capitol (with its cultural defense), and definitely don't grab too many cities. Sue for peace and start building infrastructure. The goal was met... the enemy was set back a few rungs, you have bigger territory and a larger empire, etc. Time to stop and consolidate.
The bigger question here is whether it is preferable to teach the AI to act like humans do, or to teach the AI to act in such a way that it makes for an entertaining game for the human. Getting pwned isn't usually entertaining. So, if that is the goal, then I agree, AIs should never go all out.
However, I'm not sure that's the goal. Personally, I would like the AI to act like humans do, and that includes the knowledge of when to stop throwing bad money after the good.
This is a good question, though, I think, and worth discussing. It's good to know the goal before we start arguing about how to get there.
OK, so by that rationale, why bother to have 'relations' with the AI? Why bother trying to develop good relations or share a religion or anything of the sort because if the AI is playing only to 'win', then none of that would matter a whit. ...making the AIs play solely to 'win' regardless of other circumstance is COMPLETELY throwing the core concepts of Civilization out in favor a game of conquest.
I disagree, both with the premise and with the conclusion.
Here's an analogy. Every play the board game Diplomacy? Seven human players, each with a country (on an Europe map), and each with the blatant goal of conquering 3/4 of the map. It's in your face. So, we have to ask, how in the world is this simply not a wargame? Simple: the game mechanics allow players to support each other. So, if two players gang up on a third, then they will have an advantage. Seems obvious, but there it is.
So, in Civ, "why bother trying to develop good relations"? Because the game mechanics give you a benefit for doing so. You get economic benefits by trade routes. You can get military benefits by both attacking a third player. You can trade techs. etc.
Yet, despite all this, the human, and the AIs too, each have a goal of "winning" the game. And that's how it should be. This doesn't change the fact that one way to get an advantage to win is by making a tacit alliance with another player/AI. Call this a Catch-22, or a dichotomy, or a paradox. At some point, there may be a backstab or change of alliances, and that's fine too. All part of the game.
Wodan