cheat vs. no cheat; an AAR

[Samuel Adams]

I took Scotland over the past weekend to turn 70 with no cheats. My economy in that campaign is booming, and my military while being far from the best is more than strong enough to repulse any attack while having ample room to expand to counterattack any assault sent my way. I have one army on a crusade against Jerusalem fighting its way through Denmark, and thanks to Denmark being ex-communicated they're making me pay for every advance through their territory. I won a massive battle with my crusaders against them at a bridge in Germany and it's overall a VERY interesting campaign, since I've not expanded into an empire and still have a border in Britainia with England, and hold Oslo in Norway.

I started a Venician campaign to try out cheats from online, and see how they work. I must say, I'm not impressed. While they are fun to use on occasion, overall they take all the fun right out of the game. I took on of my sons into Greece from Crete and gave him an army of crusaders and frankish mercenaries using the create_unit cheat. I overran the Byzantine Castle at Corinth with no sweat, losing less than 50 men.

Even with a nice economy, having two massive armies by turn 14 ransacked my economy forcing me to use the add money cheat.

IMO, building a faction from the ground up beats the hell outa just screwing around and getting all you want. you're more careful with your soldiers (as a good general should be) and pay more heed to your economy (as any good king should do.) any other opinions out there?

EDIT: I plan on putting a nice AAR on here about my scottish campaign thus far, and will add on to it as the Crusade advances.