What makes an AAR more interesting than another?

[rico21]

This is not a joke [:D]

[UP844]

I am also very interested in the answers!

I would like to have some insights about the overall plans the players use and the reasons behind their moves

("I am the fustest with the mostest" and "You must not die for your country, you must make sure the other SOB dies for his" will not be considered as valid replies [:D]).

[Hailstone]

Hey man, for me is simply doing what the AI can't, aggressive play. I know the AI will not move forward until it eliminates all threats,
even if its just a broken unit. So, I don't rout broken units because the AI will stay put as long as the broken unit is still alive.
Meanwhile, I'll attempt to outmaneuver the AI. The other comment I'm making is that I avoid scenarios with lots of open spaces because
it slows down the game. I found that even if the visibility is set to unlimited, a terrain with lots of blocking features works best.
The AI is much more efficient if it doesn't have to search open plains, etc. That's one of the reasons the DLC was disappointing. The first
campaign scenario, Psel Bridge, had wide open terrain that forced the program to look much further and run much slower. And, that reminds me
of something else, PLAYTESTING. Playtesting would answer your own questions of playability, play balance and whether you enjoyed playing it
in the first place. And another thing, I like scenarios with an exotic weapon or two, ie large artillery, 6+1 leaders, elephant tank, etc.

UP844, sorry for expressing so much of my opinionated BS, I had a few beers.[8|]