I guess I really shouldn't comment on all this because it really doesn't matter to me one way or the other, but with all the talk about "fairness" I find it difficult to remain quiet.
First, I guess "fairness" is in the eye of the beholder. What seems fair to one may not seem fair to another.
Second, since the AI is required to follow the same rules as the human player, then it is hard to see just where the "unfairness" is.
1) Is it that the AI can't do it? No.
2) Is it that the AI won't do it? Maybe now, but wait until the Metaverse gets smarter and Brad sees how the AI's weaknesses are exploited. He will change the AI to use the same tricks, rendering the "unfairness" moot.
3) Is it that one human player might and another might not? Maybe, but since we play against the AI, what does it matter.
4) Is it that we might find a way to exploit a weakness of the AI? Of course we will, but that is why Brad built the Metaverse, so those weaknesses can be found and elimitated over time, so I think Brad would rather we DID find those weaknesses and exploit them.
Third, where is the fairness in any strategy game that tries to mimic history? Don't forget, Brad is a history buff. Think of what the British in the 1770-1780s and the 1810s must have thought of the "Colony's" fighting strategies. After all, they did not line up and make nice targets like the British thought was the "honorable" thing to do. Instead they hid behind trees and any other cover they could find to protect themselves while taking advantage of the British being out in the open. Think of Viet Nam where the US had to counter a form of guerilla warfare that carried the US Revolutionary War strategy to even greater hights. Were the tactics of either conflict "fair"? There is no such thing as "fair" in war"fare". Even the words ("fair" and "fare") are spelled differently and have very different meanings.
Fourth, I really don't see any sense in worring about it.
Stardock Forums
