[Mustang]

The reason why most scenarios meant to be played against the computer involve the player being the attacker is probably because the AI does better on defense. Defense has more to do with positioning your units before the battle than actually moving them around during it, so the key factor is where the scenario designer places the defending units. It really is the scenario designer's fault if he isn't able to make good use of the AI.

Another problem I've noticed is that the player side is usually the one with high-quality equipment (like a Israel vs. Egypt or US vs. insurgent type of battle, with the player Israel or US). This makes it very hard for the designer to make a decent challenge, as 3rd-world troops are just soo crappy.

But it surprises me that it's soo difficult for people to make the AI a serious opponent on the defence. Probably the only major mistakes the AI makes on defence is 1) hopeless "banzai charge" counterattacks against objectives taken by the player (which can be corrected by giving the AI a high Reaction Turn to immobilize it) and 2) poor use of smoke (which can be corrected, to a degree, by preplanning artillery smoke bombardments for the AI). But other than that, it IS possible to make the computer a decent opponent. Does anyone remember the old SP2 NATO campaign? Or has anyone played McGalin's Ethiopia WinSPMBT campaign?