Can anyone confirm or disprove that the AI does/does not improve their cities?
This question can be an important one if you employ slash and burn defensive or offensive tactics and I've never actually noticed that the AI had rebuilt anything I'd destroyed.
Hypothesis #1:
The AI economy, crushed under the cost of supporting its ridiculous starting troop levels, is always in the red.
Hypothesis #2:
The AI is required to man cities with a number of units equal to that of the human player in order to quell the same amount of unrest.
I plan on testing this by slipping a spy into a city to determine initial troop levels. Seige it. Destroy some structures and leave the city to be retaken.
If #1 holds true, then the status of the city can never improve from the state you leave it (until you come back for it).
If #1 holds true, until the player disposes of enough enemy troops to bring the AI economy back into the black, there won't be any more units (improved, re-enforced, whatever) than the AI starts with.
If #2 holds true, then the AI will be forced to use some/all of its initial overwhelming quantity of units to hold cities that are unhappy.
If #2 holds true and you sack +law/+happiness structures, would it be possible for the city to actually rebel against its current rulers because they can't house enough units in the city to quell unrest?
And regardless of who is currently in posession, would an AI home city that becomes a rebel state become the first priority, perhaps giving the player extra turns to prepare while the AI forces turn towards that city?
If you burn one of your own cities before the enemy seiges, could you create a mire that stops their advance as it focuses on quelling unrest in that city?
I'm just looking for ways to slow down the Lithuanian Zerg-rush. I've even thought about moving to that little Vilnus island and trying to rebuild from there.




Reply With Quote








