The AI does'nt know where the good planets are.  They still start out with the flag ship unit.

They probably do know where the galactic resources are, however (very very old code).

I noticed it too that AI is very good at finding habitable planets. My first reaction was that, hey, AI is cheating! Then I thought that maybe it is just sending out colony ships to every star system (the AI has a lot of colony ships in higher difficulty levels) and I did not bother to test whether the AI actually does it.

They don't 'cheat'! However the location of the resources etc is known to the AI's to try and give them an edge over the human player.

It is a slippery slope to try to redefine “AI cheating”. One could argue, for instance, that technically AI can never cheat because cheating means betraying trust and the AI has no conception of trust. However, AFAIK AI cheating is understood as using information denied to player. Knowing the location of a resource without exploration certainly qualifies as AI cheating to me. The fact that this is done to provide challenge to the player is beside the point.

I am disappointed: I really liked to think that AI does not cheat. I appreciate very much, though, how much effort you put into supporting and developing the game. In short, keep it up guys, the game is great and its getting better and better!

It seems they do have more than just star locations with Stellar Cartography.

Stellar cartography doesn't give star locations but planet locations

BTW, which AI is colonizing fast? Every AI or some particular AIs? 

The iconians know where all the planets are, that's just been said. Stellar cartography does not show star locations, but rather planet locations. Yes, they know where they're going.

Also, the AI does NOT know which planets are best. Frogboy has, in a previous post, shown the line of code used for colonization, and the AI is either guessing or has been there before. The game is not broken, they aren't cheating. It's as simple as that. They HAVE to see a planet before they can judge whether it's colonisable.

If the AI is cheating, it's being pretty stupid. I can't count the number of times it's grabbed a 5-7 instead of going 2 more tiles to get to a 17 or 26.

I haven't tested, but I think the AI is geussing (it knows where the planets are). With abundant habital worlds, it probably looks like cheating. The trick would be to play at the rare setting.

However knowing how many bugs there have been in this game, it wouldn't suprise me if there was a mistake in the code. (something like the AIs sharing the explored part of the map in-advertently)

couldn't really call this cheating. It's a real trick that the AI is even capable of not knowing everything about the map, almost every 4x or RTS game ever made does this. I'd much rather have other races colonizing planets it can't see than failing to make obvious moves because of a random glitch.

I do not quite get your line of argument. In my opinion, the code "cheats" whenever it provides resources (typically information or production boost) to AI that is denied to the player. Usually it is done purposefully to provide challenge to the player (this includes "cheating" to make the game "work") but sometimes it is unintentional (as it appears to be the case with the AI knowing the location of recourses in GalCiv II - i.e. an old code). If this is not your definition of cheating, what qualifies as cheating to you? Can you point out a game where AI "cheats" for other reasons?

Or is the word that bothers you, i.e. "cheating" because it denotes behavior that is considered morally wrong? May I point out that AI is not a moral agent - it cannot act morally right or wrong - and the aim of the programmers to make the AI cheat is, I believe, laudable: to make a better gaming experience. Reading your last sentence again, it seems that you define "cheating" on the basis of whether it gives good or bad gaming experience. But such definition would make "cheating" utterly subjective.

I don't know, the AI "cheating" really has never been an issue to me. Either I can beat it or I can't. But in reflection of the original post, I do feel that the AI getting "enhancements" so to speak that the actual player doesn't receive is wrong and hence could be termed "cheating". The AI should have no better knowledge of the galaxy with reference to habitable planets. If I can't see them, then the AI shouldn't be able to either, unless there is a specific reason as to why they get that advantage over me. It would still be considered "cheating" but at least a reason wouldn't make it seem so bad, kind of like the old "saying", if you're going to bend me over and break one off, at least make me feel loved a little.... hah! But seriously, if I can't have that advantage, the AI shouldn't either. I think that is what TheWizardKs means.

To start with, I am not trying to pick on any one person, but the poster I quote had most of the important issues I am concerned with commented on. I am also not trying to flame anyone, nobody wins in that situation. If I seem to be, please accept my apologies.

The iconians know where all the planets are, that's just been said.

Do they know where all the habitable planets are, or just locations from the stellar cartography? If they know the former then they are cheating unless it is a race trait that I have not paid attention to, and if so, where does it say they get this?

Stellar cartography does not show star locations, but rather planet locations. Yes, they know where they're going. Also, the AI does NOT know which planets are best.

Yes, I made a late night mistake on planet/star terminology. I knew what I meant, but didn't say it correctly. Still, the yes they know where they are going...heck I know where I am going too, but when I get there I see zero habitable planets alot. And how can you say the AI does not know which planets are best? Just because they choose not to colonize the class 17 but instead grab the 6 does not prove or disprove that statement. A dev also posted that sensor range is improved, so maybe they do know but choose one randomly.

Frogboy has, in a previous post, shown the line of code used for colonization, and the AI is either guessing or has been there before. The game is not broken, they aren't cheating. It's as simple as that. They HAVE to see a planet before they can judge whether it's colonisable.

That code would be nice to see, but after searching for an hour I could not locate the post. Still, what I am seeing in my games definately contradicts the 'guessing or has been there before' statement. With no access to scouts at all, the AI can not be scouting to have been there before. So perhaps they are buying a colony ship every turn and sending it out to every system, but if so, the ships do not cost what they do a human player as the graph clearly shows the credits do not plummet like they should. Try playing a game on 'number of stars: rare', 'number of planets:occasional', 'number of habitable planets: occasional', map size to gigantic, 9 races, tough difficulty setting. Then modify the tech-tree file to not allow any hulls besides cargo to start. Then tell me the code is even-up. If you do not do this, you do not have anything to base your statements on if you attempt to proclaim facts.

I also realize that the AI is given bonuses per difficulty as well, perhaps they get 5 colony ships to start, I don't know, but if so, that in itself, on 'tough' difficulty, is again, cheating. Perhaps there needs to be a re-thinking of the benefits of each difficulty level. Perhaps the code has been spaghetti'd so much that no one really knows what happens. Lots of questions, not so many answers. The original intent was to determine if the AI actually is priviledged to information that the human player is not, and that has been answered yes. To me that is cheating. If you (the developer/programmer) can not beat me with your ability to program intelligent decisions into your game, but instead rely on 'unfair means', then you are taking the easy way out. Suppose the game used the theory:

Game time: 4 turns, pick a random colonizable planet and colonize it.
Game time: 7 turns, pick a random colonizable planet and colonize it.
Game time: 15 turns...etc..

It would soon have several planets, not all of them optimal picks, but it would give you a challenge for sure. Would that be fair? Cheating? Where is the difference?

Sorry to ramble on so, but I've had a few days to think on this.

I think the way the AI plays the start is pretty much perfect, advantage or not. They need any advantages they get. Removing those would drop the difficulity a couple levels at least. AFAIC, no change is needed.

Try playing a game on 'number of stars: rare', 'number of planets:occasional', 'number of habitable planets: occasional', map size to gigantic, 9 races, tough difficulty setting. Then modify the tech-tree file to not allow any hulls besides cargo to start. Then tell me the code is even-up. If you do not do this, you do not have anything to base your statements on if you attempt to proclaim facts.

Incidentally I play exactly by these parameters except that the difficulty level is usually crippling. I generally try to get scouts based on cargo hulls (such way you can put more engines and sensors on them) ASAP. Still the AI is way better finding habitable planets. I am inclined to agree that the AI knows the location of habitable planets. However, I cannot rule out (because I have not tested) that the AI does effective scouting with its numerous colony ships. In any case, it is evident that AI has far more colony ships and scouts that it could possible afford if it had the same resources as the player. This in itself is cheating. In my opinion, such "cheating" is acceptable on higher difficulty levels, although the bonuses should be documented.

The original intent was to determine if the AI actually is priviledged to information that the human player is not, and that has been answered yes. To me that is cheating. If you (the developer/programmer) can not beat me with your ability to program intelligent decisions into your game, but instead rely on 'unfair means', then you are taking the easy way out.

Care should be taken to not confuse AI cheating and programmers/developers cheating. In the first case the programmers make the AI cheat (with the intention to provide better gaming experience). In the second case the devs "play" unfair, e.g. when they intentionally mislead you. As regards the first case, you could say that programmers are taking easy way out but do you really think that "the hard way" would be commercially viable?

What irks me is when the devs are cheating: they tell you that the AI does not cheat although they know very well that it does. I am not saying that this is necessarily the case with CalCiv II. I was hooked on Galciv II mainly on the promise that the AI is good without cheating. I got the impression from journals and other dev comments that the AI does not cheat on difficulty levels up to "tough". I sincerely hope that this is the case. (The resoruce "cheating" is no problem as long as it was unintentional)

I've not seen anything to indicate an AI cheats on colonizing. If anything, I can out colonize the AI with one engine tied behind my back through sheer volume of production. It is possible that some have preknowledge, like the Iconians, but at the same time, there's nothing to say the AI doesn't follow the same pattern of "System sighted, ships built, send forth and see". If there's a planet, hit it, if not, move on.

At the Bright level, where I usually play, they do tend to B-line their progress, especially the Torians. They do tend to follow their explorer ship as its hitting anomalies or exploring without direction (when an explorer ship enters my zone of influence, I usually panic a bit and slam colonize anything I missed), so in that sense, they go with what they can see, but I've also seen races like the Arceans and Drengin balloon in all directions at once.

I am not surprised by this behavior from the AI. In fact the Auto survey function available to the player essentially lets the player collect anomolies with out the need for scouting. The player can set his Flagship to "AUTO SURVEY" at the first turn and the ship will immediately travel to anomolies, even though they haven't been detected yet. The AI will do the exact same thing with their flagships. While its not colonizing habitable planets, it is clear that the game allows for this type of behavior.

This has been explained in other threads. Survey ships have a device that locates the nearest anomalie. And as you have noticed it is the same for the human player and the AIs.
It also creates a situation where the human player can take advantage of the situation -- at least I do.

I would bet that the AI does know where a habitable planet is

I'ld bet that you'ld lose that bet.