Wardell - sees what we did there...

Well, if nobody probing your perimeter with scouts, yet somehow manages to get into the gap you left between two outposts unnoticed, that's probably cheating.

If there were scouts, then it's probably not cheating - they simply found breach in your defences. But scouts should, actually, find that breach, otherwise, it's kinda hard to believe they spotted unprotected southern flank while they were poking around northern one. Unless, of course, their sight range is long enough, allowing them to "scan" through your defences in a single glance.

This is a point where I have greatest sympathy with game designers and especially game AI designers.

I am not the greatest computer gamer, but I am pretty good at a lot of games, especially the various board games I have played with folk over the years.  I have been accused of "cheating" at various games just for playing smart, especially if I am using knowledge of rules and foresight to set myself up in some advantageous position.  The funniest was a Monopoly game, where I had to ask what particular move was cheating when every one else at the table was watching.  (And they watch closely; nit-picking rules and game process is a fanatic hobby in my family and a source of great enjoyment.)  I never got a specific answer and ended up letting it slide so as not to start a big argument.  Whatever I had done was just not fair and I had cheated, even if it was legal.  It just goes to show it is not just AI perception.  It is a perception people have of all sorts of opponents and challenges.  "That's not fair!" is a big line and attitude.  "Cheat" is a magic word in both real life and gaming forums.  It can be used to immediately polarize a discussion and make scapegoats to account for someone's frustration. 

I have to take the whole "you cheat" with a sense of humor.  I am both a stickler for rules and one that bends them to almost broken.  I can't really blame folk for frustrated misconceptions.  And, I try to play games with the idea that everyone should have fun of some sort.  However, as a game designer, you don't have such luxury.  You have to meet the whole different perceptions thing from all sides at once.  Myself, I don't mind if the AI plays with handicaps.  I find a middle level difficulty that works for me and concentrate on having fun.  As far as a game designer is concerned, I'm easy.  As far as the others go, I can only advise game designers to know in their heart of hearts that the user community itself "cheats" by loudly demanding impossible or contradictory things.  It won't make the challenge any easier, but it should be emotionally satisfying.  In the long run, that seems to be the main purpose of yelling the word "cheat" in the first place, emotional satisfaction and release.

Me, I cheat and gain my emotional satisfaction and release by loving my family more and more.  It may sound all gushy to you, but it works for me.  It also frees me to be even nastier when we play board games like Risk. 

The AI for every race in GCII knows where all the galactic resources, asteroids and planets are, but they don't claim the planets until they scout them out first.

Not according to Frogboy:

Still, I'm pretty sure, that the minor races did know where all galactic resources where.

As for Lucky Jack's questions, if you play another race, you simply start with Stellar Cartography already researched. In other words, you know how many planets there are in a star-system, but that's all.

I hesitate to call Brad freaking Wardell out on an AI oversight in his game, but I know for certain the AI knows where the habitable planets are, they just don't colonize it until they have sensor coverage on it. I found this out when the AI sent a scout followed a few turns back by a colony ship to the ass-end of nowhere where there was a single star with one habitable planet.

The AI KNEW the planet was there, I can't think of any other explanation. 

If it was a human player, I'd think he was sending the colony ship preemptively to save time in case there was a planet, but the AI doesn't do that.

The address for the GalCiv 1 homepage has been slightly changed. In any case, you don't need it, as that part of the backstory is also mentioned in the manual (pg. 55-56 "Since the alien civilizations have had thousands of years (in some cases) to explore the galaxy with remote probes, they already know where all the best planets are located and they will actively pursue them.").

It is also still mentioned in the databanks for GalCiv 3: "Unfortunately for the humans, the aliens had long since mapped out the galaxy – they knew where the best planets were."

He wrote the story, so he most definitely knew this. He even wrote about it in the dev journals:

Here's my definition of a cheating Ai one that starts out with, or is hampered by a economic bonus, or minus.

Other than the Thalan, or the Torian I can out expand them with a better economic, production, and better scientific system. I have never seen a resource grab, or mega event that can offset this. When I'm talking about the Torians I'm as good as them in the mid game, but better in the late game. I like the Thalans because I can't beat them. 

  Paul I beg of you don't hinder the colony rush on the Ai. You could scale the Thalans down a little, but more important you need to up the Drengin, Yor, and the Korath. I think the others have been fixed as far as expansion goes. I'm not talking about taxation, approval, morale, and farming, or the Torians or Iconians building improvements that still needs to be fixed. It's not the computer fault that they can use stellar cartiography while it actually gets in my way of colony expansion. Honestly I can find no cheating on the part of the Ai in the colony rush, or the resource grab. Personally the small races need more help. If a small race has an advantage over a major race they need it.  If you did what others are talking about on planetary expansion or grabbing resources I hope that don't slow most of the opponents.

Lets deal with real cheating that is giving the Ai arbitrary economic bonuses instead of them playing better.

The Reason I think we use the word cheat is that the nature of the "handicaps" ( Edit: or even their existence)  has long been hidden from the player. Even in Fallen enchantress, where it is seemingly stated at what level the AI starts to have bonuses, the nature and magnitude of those bonuses are not clearly stated. It can also be frustrating sometimes when you see an AI act in a completely idiotic way and get away with it because of huge bonuses. ( Total war games are often guilty  of that with the suicide generals )

But since we do not have yet an AI in any game that can play like a high level human player does, we have to do with cheating AIs.

But then the humans also cheat by using loopsholes in the game and flaws in the AI and by using their flexible organic brains to go around problems. So everyone and everything cheats