----
About the simulation of front lines in AGE games :I think the corps' reserve movement system ("March to the Sound of the Guns") should be use in a more and more automatical way, the more the warfare use modern transports and, after all, transmissions.
RUS is currently beta tested with almost 100% chance for a corps to participate in a fight in a neighboring region if the stack can reach it in one turn. I'm currently satisfied with the results : It allow (and push the player to do so) the constitution of small WWI fronts of 3-4 regions (which was the WWI Eastern front standards). This fronts can't be cross without fights, but you still can turn them if you have time, supply and fast units.
I suppose it would be easy to simulate the WWI Western fronts (and so more or less the SCW fronts) this way : like said TheDoctorKing, just give to both sides much more 2 stars Corps leaders in the setup of the scenarios, and you will get many "uncrossable" front lines.
The same way, the AI could be helped to use/simulate this strategy if you give it a lot of 2 stars leaders commanding the forces at the start of the game, which come already as corps leaders (i suppose the AI will keep them as corps leaders if they are in an Army range).
To be sure they are in an army range, there is also the idea to change the 3 stars army leader system (we will test locked 3 stars Army leaders (as "Big Theater Army leaders") with a huge range of action, so that 2 stars leaders can form corps which much less limitations and so that players (and IA) don't meet anymore the "bug" which don't allow a 3 stars leader Army stack to attack if there is another friendly unit in the region).
If most of the neighboring stacks of the IA help each other, you should get more challenge for small time design. Doesn't mather actually if your human's front line is facing properly the enemy like IRL or if the AI front lines looks like a worm-column.
----
About PBEM vs play-AI debateTrue that there is a majority of only-AI players, but there is obviously a minority of it to show up as volunters and MODers to improve the play of the AI in the games. And this is not a critic, this is just a fact, probably because, like it was said above, AI players are less involved in one single game but like to try many of it. And of course because AI design need a lots of time for each possible situations.
I understand all the reasons why to play against the AI.
And i (always) like the one who called for freedom and choice
.
But i don't understand some reasons why not playing PBEM. Especially the ones who says that it takes not enough time to play its 2 turns before sending the files to the opponent. I'm so perfectionist that i can't spend less than 4 hours to play my turns, so i'm never in a situation where i need the AI to play more turns in the week or in the month....
.
The other reason i can't understand is the one which say that PBEM humans are always unfair bad guys making troubles.
Boys
apy:, how are we supposed to build and improve good games if we are not able to play it together ?
I'm born boardgamer long time before the PC and an AI could propose any good historical simulation games on earth. And i will not change that.
My free contributions are following the hope that the boring time i
have to spend on the play of the AI in the scenarios should provide a good introduction and historical feellings for beginners, as well as a good training for the Big Game : the games with and against gamers.
That's my two cents.
I'm ready to follow anybody who wants more from the AI, i'm just still waiting for the AI fans to join the coding party
.