svenni_badbwoi has done some great work with some of the older maps and has really improved them, I can see some of them are already in this list. It would be great to replace some of the other maps with those versions on ladder, forbidden pass being one of them.

This is great reading. Especially about the auth woes. Makes you appreciate just how much unpaid time is put in.

The replays were ok for me,
To be fair Mylaur anyone above a 300 rank playing against a non cheating AI is going to have an easy time.
For giggles you could try RNGAI (self promotion, just make sure you read the description for setup tips) with a 1.5 cheat/build multiplier on that same map and see if your experience changes.

Getting the acu to be remotely in the realm of a human is damn near impossible(have spent days/weeks/months trying), an (almost) single threaded game just doesn't have enough clock cycles to do complex calculations at the speed to capture the data required to react and make decisions, you can do fake micro but like you said the acu doesn't really know 'what' to do.

Example for reference : getting aeon auroras the try and maintain weapon range on a target during combat takes approximately 7 function calls per second per unit plus supporting logic, if there are 50 T1 auroras on the field fighting that's 350 per second and 50 units is a small number.

Setting up AI's to fight each other is ok to get a base number.
Good to have as side information side (another tab on your spreadsheet maybe? its easier to setup an AI game and walk away if your low on time). Small note here, recently the skirmish game mode was made to allow the human to become observer so you could run these on the offline executable without spamming replays to the replay server.

But I kinda agree with tatsu in that its not representative of how those same AI's will fair against humans and there needs to be a 'feel' indicator, especially when it comes to how they play with different human play styles, map preferences, cheat multipliers and even ai game settings. One might do ok against a turtle but garbage against a pressure player and vice versa. Its all 'eye of the beholder' sort of thing, but as someone whos stared at AI games far too much its worth something.

I'm keen to have my AI playing in it. Though I'm in a terrible timezone so will will need to recruit someone for the support side of it.

I did a quick round of map testing and found issues with these two maps
Open Palms
Regor VI Highlands

Open Palms has land pathing issues. The default path markers and the Uveso generator make the AI think they can walk to the two side mass point areas but they can't. Would need adjusted pathing markers done.
Regor VI Highlands has 2 mass points that are too close to the map border so the AI can't build mass points on that. (lower right half of the map and upper left half of the map is where the two mass points live).

Both are great maps though from a gameplay perspective.

This is great reading. Especially about the auth woes. Makes you appreciate just how much unpaid time is put in.

The bulk of AI's don't do naval expansions very well. I've only just started trying to remedy that with mine.
This is likely where the request to decrease the expansion settings come from. Also the marker generator can make matters worse on certain maps when it comes to naval expansions.
Since we are talking about Sorian, it doesn't require a positive mass income to go and build a naval expansion. But each one (assuming its a T1 engineer, if its T2 then its worse) will set it back almost 1000 mass just to establish. So 5 of those in the first 20 mins meanwhile the human already put that mass into building actual ships.

In general though the expansion limits are also going to impact performance since every expansion is going to spin up some process heavy managers. The expansions are a double edged sword and the usefulness/detriment of them often comes down to how they were designed for that particular AI and what map type is being used, gameplay style is being played.

Sorian will make giant proxy bases that require significant investment, other AI will make the bare minimum so the eco can be used for main base production. Pros and cons to each approach.

The replays were ok for me,
To be fair Mylaur anyone above a 300 rank playing against a non cheating AI is going to have an easy time.
For giggles you could try RNGAI (self promotion, just make sure you read the description for setup tips) with a 1.5 cheat/build multiplier on that same map and see if your experience changes.

Getting the acu to be remotely in the realm of a human is damn near impossible(have spent days/weeks/months trying), an (almost) single threaded game just doesn't have enough clock cycles to do complex calculations at the speed to capture the data required to react and make decisions, you can do fake micro but like you said the acu doesn't really know 'what' to do.

Example for reference : getting aeon auroras the try and maintain weapon range on a target during combat takes approximately 7 function calls per second per unit plus supporting logic, if there are 50 T1 auroras on the field fighting that's 350 per second and 50 units is a small number.

Setting up AI's to fight each other is ok to get a base number.
Good to have as side information side (another tab on your spreadsheet maybe? its easier to setup an AI game and walk away if your low on time). Small note here, recently the skirmish game mode was made to allow the human to become observer so you could run these on the offline executable without spamming replays to the replay server.

But I kinda agree with tatsu in that its not representative of how those same AI's will fair against humans and there needs to be a 'feel' indicator, especially when it comes to how they play with different human play styles, map preferences, cheat multipliers and even ai game settings. One might do ok against a turtle but garbage against a pressure player and vice versa. Its all 'eye of the beholder' sort of thing, but as someone whos stared at AI games far too much its worth something.

svenni_badbwoi has done some great work with some of the older maps and has really improved them, I can see some of them are already in this list. It would be great to replace some of the other maps with those versions on ladder, forbidden pass being one of them.

I've always wanted an increase in MML max missile speed, provides more of an incentive to hold fire to overwhelm TMD (except the aeon one) since the reload speed wouldn't change.

Which specific AI are you talking about here AwarE? You didn't mention any name. Its usually up to the specific AI developer how they deal with expansions (and the AI expansion configurations set by the user when they are setting up the game). Some AI's put economic limits on the expansions and other have mass to factory ratio limits on them(or both) that may be limiting it.

The AI is supposed to get a list of of units at an expansion to determine if it should make its own expansion there so it 'should' be detecting other AI's naval factories on locations before deciding its going to make its own.

I had a look and can see the problem.
It looks to be caused by pull request 3173. An invalid condition has been used called 'HaveLessThanUnitsInCategoryBeingUpgrade', this doesn't exist in the default faf codebase under UnitCountBuildConditions.lua.

It looks like it came from Uveso's custom UCBC conditions from his AI(given the german spelling).

Side note : I thought this was a balance only patch?

@Mavorike @Aeronth you could work around this problem by having Uveso's AI mod enabled when you start the games so that the missing condition is present in the merged codebase until its fixed in the main.

Uveso may not respond for a while but I can say that his AI has a condition on the naval factory that it requires a land factory before it will build and some other economic requirements. So while it can be done it'd require work on his behalf.