[LintMan]

I really don't like cheating AI's - when I play a game, I want it to be challenging, but I also like it to be on even terms. Handicapping myself or giving the AI big advantages in order to make a challenging game doesn't appeal to me.

But given that, I'd say that #'s 4 and 6 shouldn't be considered AI cheating - if the data is available or can be derived, the AI can and *should* make use of it.

I also would be in favor of making certain information available to all players, if it would help the AI. ie: If the AI was able to make good use of the stats info from the "Scores" screen (such as if the AI used how much intel points an enemy is generating to decide how much if needs to put into intel/counter-intel to keep up), then I'd make the "show all players scores" standard instead of an option.

I also wouldn't mind seeing some of the game's rules and data changed in ways that might make things easier for the AI. For instance, the tactical AI is highly vulnerable to the shoot-and-run tactic. Going to a simpler combat model (say where shooting uses all remaining movement) or improving the combat model to fight that (say, by adding opportunity fire) would be ways to help the AI out without cheating.

If I HAD to accept cheating in some form, I'd probably prefer the AI to have bonus information over bonus resources.

To put my 2 cents in on the lazy programmer thing - in general, I disagree that it's laziness that's the cause for lousy or cheating AI's in games. I'd place the blame on 1) budget considerations and 2) lack of AI programmer expertise. What I mean is that programming a truly tough, non-cheating AI for a complex strategy game would be hard, and that translates to expensive, both cost- and time-wise. And since AI flaws are only visible to gamers after they've bought the game and played a while, it's much easier to skimp there than on, say, graphics. I fully believe it's possible to write a kick-butt non-cheating AI for a complex strategy game, but I don't think any developer's willing to budget for it.

As for #2, I'm not slamming game programmers - I just don't think many gaming companies hire programmers with their AI skills/knowledge in mind - I think there's more focus on graphics, animation, sound, and network programming skills. Writing good AI code is a skill like writing good netcode is, and the skill sets don't necessarily overlap, so if a game company isn't shopping for a good AI programmer, it's just luck if they happen to get one. (And even then it's back to the budget issue - if they won't spend the man-hours to test and fix the AI, it doesn't matter how good the programmers are.)

But then, of course, looking at Command and Conquer 2 (I haven't played RA2), I see a game they had several years to make, at a big-name big-budget developer, and it has virtually no improvements over it's predecessor...and I start wondering if it was laziness, too. :-)