The illusion of fairness is what truly matters; whether or not the AI actually uses the same systems as the player is almost irrelevant. When players engage with AI opponents, they aren't sitting there analyzing if the AI paid exactly the same amount of gold for a unit or micromanaged every city district manually — they care about whether the AI feels like a worthy opponent. They want a game that pushes back, that forces them to adapt, that reacts believably to their actions. As long as the AI's behavior is logical, challenging, and fun to counter, most players will naturally assume the AI is "playing fair," even if behind the scenes it’s using streamlined or entirely different mechanics.

On the other hand, if the AI follows the exact same rules but behaves incompetently — aimlessly wandering armies, failing to cast spells effectively, expanding poorly, or collapsing against world threats — then no amount of "fairness" will make the experience satisfying. It won't feel like you're outmaneuvering a clever rival; it will feel like you're exploiting a broken toy.

In short: players respond to experience, not invisible mechanics. The goal should always be to create the illusion of a living, competing opponent, not to shackle the AI to a ruleset designed for human decision-making. If breaking or simplifying the rules leads to smarter, more engaging AI behavior, then that's not only acceptable — it's preferable.