It seems there are no bots at all, they all have similar power in 1v1 matches. Although they defeated Petra in my test matches, according to the user above, they are easily defeated. However, if you want to experiment, you can download any bot from here and play on large maps or larger, with unlimited population and deathmatch resources, and you can wait a bit for them to power up (although Petra doesn't wait for them). Anyway, I'm fixing early game issues for them (they are strong in the late game), so if you're still interested, you can come back and try them out.

There is an ELO rating system implemented in the MP Lobby for 1v1's. A notorious problem with it is that it doesn't handle matches where one of the players disconnected before it was over, these matches simply aren't counted. Some players exploit this by leaving or closing matches when they realise they are about to be defeated, in order not to lose any rating points. This obviously goes against the rules, which is why this thread exists for reporting it: However, I think we can all agree that, ideally, bypassing the rating system like this wouldn't even be possible in the first place. This would save players the frustration and moderators the work of checking submitted replays. While talking about it in this thread the following idea came up:   There are two cases of players quitting, firstly the one hosting the match, and secondly the one who joined the hosted game (the client). - If the client leaves, currently, the match continues, just without anyone controlling one side. If the host now finishes the match as usual by defeating the opponent (who doesn't defend himself anymore since the client left), it should still count as a win for the host and as a defeat for the client. If the client disconnected for a different, valid reason and planned to return, he should communicate that to the host beforehand. I'd argue it's the clients' responsibility to ensure they have a somewhat stable internet connection, so that they aren't completely disconnected frequently, and when they are, can still rejoin quickly. The downside is that it incentivizes hosts not to wait for the client to come back, since they no longer have to. - If the host leaves, currently, the match is immediately ended, without the client having a chance to continue the match in the same way as proposed for the host. In that case, the game should count as a win for the client. I know this sounds harsh, but as far as I can tell from the code, this only happens if the host manually exits the match or terminates the program. If the host only loses internet connection, all clients (one, if it's a 1v1) are disconnected from the match, but they are able to reconnect as the match itself on the host side persists. So the only way this can happen unintentionally is if the computer crashes, but again, that's probably something the host is responsible to ensure that it doesn't happen.   What do you think? Is there anything I'm missing? An issue I can think of is that it enables hosts to exploit the system by starting a match, immediately kicking the client or blocking his connection deliberately in another way, and then being able to easily win the game and still be awarded rating points. Although, that's something that should just be reported as well.

what's the hardest, most toughest to beat bot we've got here?

Protectorate isn't significantly different in power from the other two bots, as they share similar logic. The difference lies in the tribute and troop deployment mechanics, so if you've defeated the other two bots, you'll likely defeat it as well.

I remember seeing "this also unlocks undergirding cables for some civs" in one of the tech descriptions. was always confused what it meant