I can't get this comment out of my head.
When I discovered war games there weren't any AIs.
Those of us who had ftf opponents played them. Those that didn't have ftf opponents played the simulation as both sides. We had no choice, someone had to move the pieces and if it wasn't another it was us.
And war games sold just fine (well as fine as war games sold).
The AI wasn't there to create the hobby.
Uh, well, as far as computer games go, it did.
Boardgames are of course another story.
But with pc games, one would like the AI to be at least a decent sparring partner.
I really stopped waiting. I tend to be ok with games if they are multi player and the AI can be cut out of the loop. Because then you get a board game with no dust on the board the cat can't knock over the counters and you can play 3 separate complete games and not need three copies of the game. Some games in board game form are so big you can't even play them without a warehouse grade floor space. I would like to play all of Fire in the East, but will have to settle for War in the East, because I can at least find space for it.
More fun against a human. But as long as the game permits accurate parameters, realistic potentials, credible simulations. The moment you add an AI the words accurate/realistic/credible are NOT words you should be using.
Wargame, 05% of the time.
Play with Barbies 05% of the time.
Play with Legos 10% of the time.
Build models 20% of the time
Shopping 60% of the time.
Exlains why I buy em more than I play em.