I think a lot of the things that people complain about as being "cheese" are pretty ridiculous. A lot of it I'd be doing anyway, whether the AI was up to countering it or not. Not my fault if the AI does some things badly. For instance:

So you are saying that the fact that the AI only redisigns and build ships once per year is not exploitable?

A design flaw that should be fixed, clearly. However, it isn't fair to say anyone is exploiting it. Surely no one expects people to hold off upgrading laser II to plasma III until after the next UP meeting?

If the AI is foolish enough to declare war on me, I upgrade designs the instant a new technology will provide for a better warship. I end up with fleets that have 5 or 6 different types of ships in it because I threw a ton of cash at research and "discovered" more advanced weapons in between one frigate and the next".

As for people who think first strike somehow is exploiting the AI..... WTF? Are you people out of your minds? War isn't bending over a barrel in front of your enemy. The point, in case you are confused, is to kill people and break things, not to give the enemy a fair fight. If Altarian battleships are coming at my Drengin frigates, I'm supposed to sit there and lose the battle on purpose, because it's unfair to the Altarians that my engines are better?

Same for those who think having better sensors is exploiting something. Do you play the game with your eyes closed? Should the English have turned off their radar sets during the Battle of Britain, because it was unfair to the Germans that they knew their bombers were on the way? The Germans (and Japanese) were about as dumb about radar as the AI is about sensor techs.

About Ai doing ship design once a year.

A design flaw that should be fixed, clearly. However, it isn't fair to say anyone is exploiting it. Surely no one expects people to hold off upgrading laser II to plasma III until after the next UP meeting?

It's not exactly a design flaw, it was done on purpose if i understand correctly.

As for people who think first strike somehow is exploiting the AI..... WTF? Are you people out of your minds?

It's not cheating per se, because in theory the AI can do the very same things, but due to limitations it is hard for them to use sensors and achieve first strike. Same for ship design once a year, they can't do it, because it's too expensive computationally.

I do agree that just because the human can use some strategy that the computer can't because of the nature of the AI doesn't mean you are cheating.

When human grandmasters play chess against chess AI, there are also many things the human GM can do the computers can't (Humans for example can see that 'fortress positions' are drawn at a glance, while the AI can't),. and hence in some positions the AI is effectively blind compared to the human GM, but chess AI is far superior then Galciv's , after decades of work they compensate in their own ways by doing things the humans can't either...

Even on harder difficulty settings I notice that the Ai has a tendance to continue on its research line effectivly making itself vulnerable to my ship types and my ship types invulnerable to theirs .

Probably a result of the last tweak they made. The computer was researching like Laser I, Gun I, Missile I, Laser II, Gun II, Missile II, ... because it always went for the next cheapest technology. So they made it to go for the most useful one instead, and now it looks like it's going up one tree even when it out to diversify. Oh well, back and forth.

Tactics that allow you to gain advantage by exploiting a loophole in the AI, will let you win.

Tactics that allow you to gain advantage by exploiting a lack of understanding in some area by the human opponent, will let you win.

Isn't that what 'exploiting a loophole in the AI' means? Mainly exploiting the lack of understanding by the opponent in some area? If it's okay for the human opponent why is it cheesy when it's used against the AI?

But so will cheat codes.

Cheat codes do not exploit just the AI. If they work, they work equally well against a human opponent.

All tactics and victories against an opponent (who is by definition inferior since hs lost), involves you exploiting his lack of understanding of the game in a certain area.

If I was playing against a human player and he was dumb enough to accept a tech trade that was unfavourable, itsthat cheesy ? Probably not. Why is it cheesy then if the human player is replaced by an AI?

I don't consider a strategy that your opponent could use as well *if he was smart enough* cheesy.

That said, we can give allowances to AI limitations, but sometimes the way you people talk it seems like unless I play exactly like the AI, using Ai strategies , my tactics and strategies are cheesy. .

They are not cheesy , just better, because they reflect a superior understanding of the game!