I'm working on a space exploration game where humanity has become extinct and Earth is no longer inhabitable. A lone AI activates and its main directive is to find another world where humanity can be given a second chance (via cryogenized embryos).
The setting is one where space travel happens at sublight speed. Imagine some sort of interstellar Kerbal Space Program where you send out probes to other star systems. In the context of the game, a world similar to Earth is incredibly rare (which might very well be the actual truth) and we are potentially in a desolate corner of the galaxy (no aliens).
Assume the AI can function for thousands of years (that would also be an element of the game). At some point an Earthlike planet is found, but it is not a perfect copy of Earth: too cold, too hot, no water, too much water. Something's not ideal.
How could an AI weigh whether to focus on terraforming the found planet versus continuing the search?
Which terraformable characteristics would be addressable with realistic technology and hundreds or thousands of years of waiting? And which would be lost causes?
I imagine some planets would be unterraformable (or not worth the effort vs the results) without "type 3" technology (e.g. tidally locked planets, those without a magnetosphere, changing a planet's orbit...). Whereas maybe other actions (melting the polar caps or crashing comets to increase the water amount) might be more feasible?
But if terraforming is always feasible, then the search might end just after starting, or not start at all (just focus on Mars?). So I might have to rework the game idea.