////////////////////
//MY FINAL OPINION//
////////////////////
In my mind, the debate has been settled. Small maps are the way to go. While satisfying player demand for larger maps, the developers never re-coded, or even adjusted, the AI to suit the larger maps. Then, they loaded the maps with too many victory locations. So, you have a victory location driven AI with the ability to react to human players, where the AI's core design is based on MUCH smaller maps. All in all, the AI, while not genius, is capable enough to handle the player, even beat them, but you have to give the AI its element back. In essence, the game has be adjusted to suit solitaire play against the AI. By all means, play the large maps on multiplayer if you like, but the only way to have fun against the AI is to take it back to its roots.
I do agree that the AI leaves much to be desired, but in my tests I saw intelligent behavior under the hood that I hadn't noticed before. The AI does have the ability to be a decent opponent (Keyword "decent". It's never going to match the intelligence of a person on multiplayer.) I could see how Stwa, yes Stwa, could have favorable experiences in Modern Tactics. Its scenario editor is robust, and because there aren't any map connections for can place a single victory location if that's what you wanted to do, then lay out the deployment zones accordingly. So, yes, the AI is good, not great, but it delivers an experience that's fun to slug it out against. And, frankly, that's all I really ask for from this. At least I can have fun in Close Combat again, and that was the goal to begin with in these tests!