18-11-2001 14:18									#1
	Viable locations for new AI bases Remove this text

Is it just me, or does settling in a square surrounded on all sides and as far as the eye can see (well, okay, not quite, but five quares) by radioactive fallout not seem like a good idea? Yet time and time again, I see the AI doing just that.

And on related lines, why does a nuke blast the city, but leave all the terrain improvements in the 9square untouched? Seems to me like it woulda wiped them out. But then again, what do I know?

	18-11-2001 16:30									#2
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

You're right, nukes should do more damage, both to terrain improvements and to units occupying cities.

OTOH, I find myself more and more playing in an "AI"-like style [only smarter] when I go on the offensive. I will often "waste" a settler [what the hell - it only takes a decent city one turn to build one and six or eight turns to make up the population lost, which was probably tax collectors or entertainers anyway] when I advance into the AI's terrain, because building a new city lets me seize some of his road and rail network. With tanks only having 2 movement points, it can make a big difference. It makes the difference between getting to the objective area in 2 turns or 4.

Also, the AI has a tendency to give out a lot of goodies if you build a worthless city in or around his territory and then offer it in trade.