As always, thank you for enlightening us unwashed heathens. We must all just be hallucinating when we disagree with you.
I've done no name calling, no nasty words, no rude strawman arguments, no passive aggressiveness, nothing. I've made my arguments in a neutral fashion. I'm not trying to be condescending or "nothing but negative" at all.
No. The ranking criteria is designed around the AI's actions. If IS intentionally meant to design a game around faulty AI then they wouldn't have fixed it in the later games.
And for the love of god, when I pointed out the idea of taking out a Fighter by surrounding it with Infantry, I was not talking about efficiency! I was referring to my greater need to suspend my disbelief while playing AW over FE (and also to a certain Webcomic Strip that I'm too lazy to dig up at the moment).
If the AI didn't focus on APCs in AW1, quite a few maps would be impossible to S rank. Changing the AI would drastically alter how the maps play out, and may make some of them impossible. Figuring out the AI is part of solving some of the maps, it's not a matter of "flawed" or "fixed". If you don't figure the AI out, regardless of whether you consider its behavior "flawed", you're not getting a S rank. Furthermore, you don't know why they decided to change the AI in later games. It's impossible to read the developer's minds about their "intent", unfortunately.
Appeal to realism in Advance Wars vs Fire Emblem? Your belief should already be highly suspended when playing these sorts of games, imo. There is no enemy pass through in Fire Emblem either, and you could make the same sorts of arguments. Not that I think appeal to realism makes much sense in these sorts of games.