i think you have to ask yourself things like this:


was it cheating the first time an army out flanked an opponent instead of just lining up face to face? was it cheating the first time someone launched a projectile at a wall from a safe distance instead of marching up to the door? was it cheating for the Chinese to build a giant freaking wall so no one could attack them from that side? was it cheating when Leonidas put his army shoulder to shoulder in that mountain pass and used it as walls to protect their flanks?

in battle the object is to out think, out maneuver, and out exploit your enemy. you search for weaknesses with the intention of exploiting them. you don't find them and then decide to ignore it because "that gives us an unfair advantage".

is this a game? yes it is. but the object is to win. plain and simple. if you aren't altering files to give uber money and uber armies then no, you aren't cheating. you are seeing how the program reacts to different things and basing your actions on what is most accurately described as its "personality" even though it's just a program. just as a commander would charge his men to hold a position and not be led into an open battle they cannot win, because he knows his opponent will not charge foolishly into a situation that will cost more lives than the battle is worth.

what i would say is, when you are ready for a more challenging game you already know where to start in terms of your own game play. when you stop doing those things it will make it more difficult, just as it would be more difficult for me to tell my horses to charge from the side rather than the rear. do i still have an advantage? yes. is it as good as i could make it? no.


(long rant here that i deleted about gaming companies and sub-par work)