[Steppenwolf]

I completely agree with you, Q and capnq, that the main argument against making the MEE function more "realistic," meaning less all-against-one-like, less suicidal, less black-boxes-fighting-each-other-like, is that this would make it too easy for the human player who has achieved MEE status. As already alluded to in my lengthy post, the reason for this is the general weakness of the AI.

But making the MEE function more realistic doesn't necessarily entail fewer war declarations on you in general. I just think there could be better reasons for anger against you than just your size and power. I'm a newbie to this game, but is it wrong to say that the AI players very rarely declare war on you when you are one among equals? Instead of waiting until you are the sole remaining superpower, the MEE, shouldn't they more often attack when you are still vulnerable with open flanks? Couldn't we make the MEE function AND the opening game more realistic?

This, above all, is how it works in reality: In times of state-building, imperialism, and colonialism, states don't wait until you grow strong or even become the sole remaining superpower. They aggressively expand when they see a power vacuum and when you are still weak. Isn't that what we human players all know? Expand your empire at the early stages, then secure your borders to prosper and build up your armada, then take on the rest!

By improving the AI to better seize opportunities in the early game AND modifying the MEE function, MM could make the game more realistic AND keep up the challenge for human players.

Be that as it may, fact remains the AI must become stronger...

Cheers!

[ 16 December 2001: Message edited by: Steppenwolf ]