Re: [Human-beings-discuss] balance human development and war

[Guillaume Cottenceau]

"Régis Guinvarc'h" <address@hidden> writes:

> > generally very different (mainly because AI are often very good
> > with primary resources gathering [another idea to remember =>
> > artificially limit the performance of AI there to have more
> > enjoyable games] 
> 
> just put different levels of AI, or AI which are differently balanced. I 
> mean, as in HOMM for instance, you could have builders, warriors ... But AI 
> is another problem.

Different levels/styles of AI could be interesting - but this is
a problem for later :-).

Another thought for later: AI's would team up against the
strongest player if he is very much more powerful than others.


[...]

> > Probably, the most straightforward and "easy" way to define the
> > goal of the game would be "destroy oponents", and if the balance
> > is well defined, it could be combined to civilization
> > development. But, maybe, it would be a bit frustrating that your
> > "nice" and well developed civilization, after 3-4 hours of game,
> > is "abandoned" since you just won the game.
> 
> because of that, i like the score goal. Thanks to it, you can define 
> different "secondary goals". but in that case, one have to define **wery 
> well** these goals 

Fully agreed.
 
> In my opinion, spacerace is not a solution, as all of your resources are 
> focuss on only one point. Actually, that might also be the problem of the 

Good point.

> "kill them all".

Except that killing them all would mean developing civilization,
etc, but agreed.


Well then we've not solved the problem of designing the goal of
the game :-(.


-- 
Guillaume Cottenceau - http://www.frozen-bubble.org/