Actually, I can't think of a computer game where the AI doesn't cheat, at least in some areas. Civilization (1 through 4, but this was removed in Warlords), for example, was famous for having the AI "know" where the good terrains and tribal villages were. At the higher levels, their starting exploratory troops would make a run straight towards the closest tribal village. And, they would plant new cities in what looked like awkward places, but later turned out to be perfect placement (once the then-hidden resources became visible).
So, given that, the real question is how MUCH "cheating" they are allowed. Personally, I like the idea of having the AI's abilities be tailorable by the player. I hate it when the computer "knows" the map before they should legitimately be able to see it. But, allowing them the equivalent of higher combat dice rolls seems fine to me. Other players might desire the opposite.
Now, an idea: In EiA and EiANW, the combat tables are built around six-sided dice which are rolled at a table. Discreet mathematics can be used, making the "odds" be an exercise in calculating step-function probabilities. In other words, there are only 36 possibilities, each chosen from a continuum of values (i.e. the set of real numbers between X and Y).
BUT, in a computer game, there's no reason they have to be laid out this way. The combat tables could be generated such that there is a continuum of results, rather than a small set of potential outcomes. For example, let's say that the combat table ranges from 0.2 morale loss through 2.6 on rolls of 0 through 7. In that range, there are 8 specific numbers (each with 1 digit to the right of the decimal) that can be rolled. What happens to the other 17 possibilities? They simply don't exist.
Why can't the computer (AI) be allowed to roll a result that is in-between the values the tables would allow? In the example above, let's say the possible results normally would be 0.2, 0.5, 0.8, 1.2, 1.5, 1.8, 2.2, and 2.6. Allow the computer to "roll" results that included the missing entries (0.3, 0.4, etc.). In fact, allow the computer to roll 0.55 and 2.16 and other strange rolls. Just keep the displayed values rounded for display purposes, but keep the "extra" points with the numbers.
If this were implemented, then it would be a very simple matter to give the computer an "AI fudge factor": Simple add 0.1 (or, 0.7 or 1.3) to the end result.
A similar concept could be applied to casuaty percentages: Remove the limitation on having to have percentages that are multiples of 5, and let the computer have in-between values. Again, the fudge factor would be to simply add a factor to the end result garnered by the "die roll".
The bottom line is that it would be possible for the AI to be "6% better" in combat than an equivalent force belonging to a human. Or, 7%, of 5%, or any other number one might choose.
With combat being the at the core of the game, though, this has the potential of being hugely unbalancing. So, it would be imperative to allow players to tailor these values (at least while the idea is being beta-tested, and probably forever). In other words, "easy", "normal", and "hard" AI would have selectable value for the parameters. "Parameters" would include not just combat dice rolling, but also the VP and/or PP bonuses currently applied. It could also include the odds of being friendly with another AI player or human player. Or, forage values. The possibilities are endless.
At LAST! The greatest campaign board game of all time is finally available for the PC. Can my old heart stand the strain?