A Canadian Cat

I'd say it's worth playing both against a human opponent and against the AI. The human opponent is more reactive and challenging. But you can get in more turns a day against the AI. I think the only way to learn the game is precisely the same way you learn anything else. You put lots of time into it.
Of course one additional thing you can do is to supplement your gameplay by studying tactics. I made a post that I thought offered some decent tactical advice a while back: 
 
If you're really crazy you can even go directly to the doctrine manuals. For WW2 doctrine I usually go to the Nafziger collection:
https://nafzigercollection.com/product/american-tank-company-tactics-fm-17-32/
https://nafzigercollection.com/product/us-armored-infantry-battalion-fm-17-42/
https://nafzigercollection.com/product/british-and-commonwealth-armored-tactics-in-wwii/
https://nafzigercollection.com/product/british-and-commonwealth-motorized-infantry-tactics-in-wwii/
https://nafzigercollection.com/product/employment-of-tanks-with-infantry-fm-17-36/
https://nafzigercollection.com/product/german-panzer-tactics-in-world-war-ii-combat-tactics-of-german-armored-units-from-section-to-regiment/
https://nafzigercollection.com/product/soviet-armored-tactics-in-world-war-ii-the-tactics-of-the-armored-units-of-the-red-army-from-individual-vehicles-to-battalions-according-to-the-combat-regulations-of-february-1944/
https://nafzigercollection.com/product/soviet-infantry-tactics-in-world-war-ii/
I'd recommend FM 100-2-1 for Cold War/modern Soviet/Russian doctrine. And FM 71-1 or FM 71-2 for Cold War/modern US doctrine.

That's what I did.  Go to the various opponent finder threads like this one:
https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/forums/combat-mission-opponent-finder.451/

Yeah, weird, right? Now, why would I do that? Oh, right, because Steve seems to think that micro drones are a useful proxy for large drones that can carry a reasonable HE payload.
Small things pack small. Micro drones and small arms ammo are examples of this.
Heavy things pack heavy. Artillery ammunition is the canonical example of this.
Bulky things pack bulky. Load carrying drones are an example of this.
Load carrying drones are a lot lighter than artillery ammunition, but they are also bulkier. Ignoring that doesnt make the arguments in favour of drones more compelling.

Perhaps some people are confuddled by your list. "Veritable" is very much "in" rather than "out". As are, "Varsity", "Remagen" and "Cologne", unless my 400 year old noddle is playing tricks on me.

This is ‘PART 4: Techniques – methods of undertaking movement tasks by tanks in combat’ of the short longer than originally planned series giving an overview of the tactical fundamentals and principles behind WWII German tactical drills and combat formations commonly used in 1944 using examples from Combat Mission Red Thunder to illustrate key points. 
In Part 4 we look at the specific ‘battle drills’ and associated movement techniques used by the German tank platoon to gain superiority in a firefight with enemy forces.
Part 5 will be looking at training programmes etc and jeezo, was that a rabbit hole...
Hopefully this will be of use to both players and thsoe interested in this time period. It was originally intended to complement the tank tactical problem series I created.
As an aside when you start digging into this is becomes even more painfully clear how a dogged emphasis doctrinally and values wise on "unexpected, concentrated and determined attack; aggressive leadership and daring operations." coupled with increasingly minimally trained crews (and training hampered by lack of resources both human and material), and just as importantly, tank and small unit commanders, would only lead to needless losses. 

This part was interesting:
 
 

This sort of narrative reminds me of WW1 generals who also thought the airplane was a fad.  First off Russian glide bombs need to carry so much HE because they are inefficient and imprecise.  A whole lot of HE is not necessarily a good thing.  For example, if I have 10 enemy in a build I can use a large 500lb HE munition to drop the building.  The energy it takes to get that heavy munition to that building is significant, costly and has a high ISR signature.  If I have 10 micro-drones with a .45 cal round that will not miss, that simply fly into the building and kill all 10 enemy, I am using far less energy and cost to deliver the same effect.  I am using precision and processing as an offset.
So the Russian AF lobbing large glide bombs is not a sign that “big booms are back baby!”  It is a sign that 1) Russian ISR is still fairly low res, 2) Russia does not have a lot of higher tech precise munitions and 3) we should really be worrying about air denial for Ukraine because if that fails then a whole lot of this is largely academic.
As to “someday soon C-UAS will make this all go away and we can go back to Grandpa’s war” - there is a lot of hand waving on “someday C-UAS”.  Yes, counters will be developed but they will likely reshape the battle space in doing so.  For example, let’s say we invent a nifty micro-smart missile or laser that can blast those pesky UAS out of the sky, even when they are in swarms.  “Huzzah!  Now that is over with, let’s roll out the tanks and do this Persian Gulf style…USA.USA!”
Well except for the part where we have operationalized a technology that can find and hit a flying target the size of a bird with a very small munition at crazy scales.  What do we suppose the impact of that technology is going to have on conventional ground units?  That level of ISR alone means nothing can move without being picked up for kms.  Individual infantry are screwed, vehicles may as well be battleships.  The changes such technology would bring would be f#cking profound.
So there is no going back after this with or without UAS.  Unmanned, plus ISR, plus processing power, plus miniaturization, plus cheap production are all conspiring against our entire current theories of warfare. They have been for decades while we tried to ignore them.  So we can do “hope and denial” or we can can see the shift for what it is and adapt.
 
 

You do realise we're arguing the same side here?
A lot of traditional systems seem broken (or wounded, or at least a bit lame due to a gammy knee) right now; navy, fast air, attack aviation, infantry, armour, engineers, logistics, and yes artillery. That's due to a bunch of things; prolific atgms, prolific pgms, lagging mil industrial capability and production, prolific isr, and yes drones.
The way through this dark wood isn't going to be ditching everything and betting the farm on the whirrwhirr.
We *know* that artillery is an important part of the combined arms team. We *know* that artillery is crucial to enabling go-forward offensive maneauvre. It isnt working right now, but as always it'll evolve and indirect fires will resume their place in the go-forward team.

Well no, AIUI it (lack of readily available ammunition) was a major factor in the craking of the Ukrainian lines. The sheer number, duration and dimensions of RUS infantry assaults required far more arty than was provided. 
There were at least two major positions on the northern "shoulders" in lost because of lack of fires support. 
This didn't get better and eventually was a significant factor. Ukraine just couldn't kill and suppress the Rus infantry in sufficient numbers. 

Quite a bit. I havent yet seen a lot of evidence of drones being used offensively as part of go-forward combined arms maneauvre.
Instead we see they're being used as mobile mines or battlefield assassination tools. Which is genuinely really problematic, but also kind of a dead end street.
Edit: I'm excluding ISR above. That's already generally integrated and supplementing other systems

Solid "meh" from me.  I mean, sure if we see scope and scale that overtakes artillery and begins to hunt it to extinction, like we have seen with tanks...but the evidence is not there yet.
Guns teaming with Unmanned and Light infantry has happened in this war to pretty solid effects, I suspect it will be a trend that continues. 
I will put 50$ on the bar that the eggheads in the western MIDs are scrambling to figure out how to build and employ a cheap hunter-killer c-drone, drone.  So an equilibrium wave is coming, but the needle will be moved and cannot be unmoved.
Whether it moves far enough to drop a second pillar of the combat arms teams (ie artillery) though?  I am betting "no," at least for another decade.  My guess is that they will share the battlefield and advantage will go to whichever side can combine them the best.
The biggest reason, at least in western warfare will be "control".  Unmanned AI could be let off the leash to swarm and eliminate grid squares, but we will likely get bogged down in legality.  Artillery still has high levels of direct human control, and legal frameworks that govern its employment.  That alone almost guarantees a generational shift. 
In the end we are talking about "killing at distance".  Artillery and UAS share the qualities to push that out over the horizon when linked into modern C4ISR.  Anything that can stop a drone, won't be able to stop PGM artillery and vice versa. Tanks simply do not have the range and are too big and heavy for what we get out of them.  Infantry can hold ground.  Now UGVs are a revolution for holding ground that we have not seen yet.  But there I also expect human-unmanned pairing forward. At least at the start.

That one I am not so sure of. Setting aside the darkness surrounding a full Russian state collapse, that you have appropriately pointed out, it seems to me that China is actually the one in a position to benefit from that. At least in their near border area they are in a place that the could take over (directly or by proxy) and stabilize huge portions of the country to their exclusive benefit.
Then considering the darkness that may result form a full state collapse China is also the one least effected by those concerns. They have far better and more ruthless control over what nerdowells get up to inside their country and given they could likely stabilize a large portion of the country for their benefit they might skate on the downside of a state wide collapse.

Okay roger that, will do.

Not exactly - the steel alloy used (high carbon and brittle) is chosen so as to create fragments which themselves contribute to the effectiveness of the weapon.
Artillery worked quite well before drones were a thing
 
Look, drones are great. The have capabilities that emulate or exceed other similar kinds of effects delivery systems. But drones also have limitations, and capabilites that are inferior to other similar kinds of effects delivery systems. And they most definitely aren't some magical uber weapon which has suddenly made all other military capabilities obsolete.

Artillery fits all four, and handles the 50% haircut.

That one I am not so sure of. Setting aside the darkness surrounding a full Russian state collapse, that you have appropriately pointed out, it seems to me that China is actually the one in a position to benefit from that. At least in their near border area they are in a place that the could take over (directly or by proxy) and stabilize huge portions of the country to their exclusive benefit.
Then considering the darkness that may result form a full state collapse China is also the one least effected by those concerns. They have far better and more ruthless control over what nerdowells get up to inside their country and given they could likely stabilize a large portion of the country for their benefit they might skate on the downside of a state wide collapse.

That one I am not so sure of. Setting aside the darkness surrounding a full Russian state collapse, that you have appropriately pointed out, it seems to me that China is actually the one in a position to benefit from that. At least in their near border area they are in a place that the could take over (directly or by proxy) and stabilize huge portions of the country to their exclusive benefit.
Then considering the darkness that may result form a full state collapse China is also the one least effected by those concerns. They have far better and more ruthless control over what nerdowells get up to inside their country and given they could likely stabilize a large portion of the country for their benefit they might skate on the downside of a state wide collapse.

Basically, because they are still situations where a gun is useful, whether stopping enemy/hostile vessels, supporting ground troops, etc. where a missile would not work or would be overkill. 
Most modern warships, like U.S. or RN destroyers also only typically have 1x 4.5 or 5 inch gun as its main gun armament.

The why do we still hear this mantra coming out of western militaries today?  We had a MGen declare this exact statement at the opening of an Operational Symposium last month.  I have heard this mantra as the primary reason to have tanks for years now.
I agree entirely that history - and this war in particular - clearly demonstrate that 100 years of worrying about tanks has created a world where tanks are being hunted into extinction by a multitude of systems.  I also think we have a cultural block we cannot get past.

That is just insane.  Forget situational awareness and they cannot swing the gun.  Sure it may stop FPVs but now gets lit up by ATGMs and artillery.
It has to be really bad for vehicles if the Russians are trying out stuff like this.

What ticks me off is that he is going to go off and sulk now, muttering about how we are all “high on copium” and “smother alternative views.”  I resent the echo chamber accusation immensely.  Many people have put in a lot of time and effort to keep up with this war.  We are definitely pro-Ukraine but we also try to avoid the blinders as best we can. If they do not want to get beat up, come in with stronger arguments…and maybe some actual facts.
Is Russia still in this thing?  Definitely.  I am not sure exactly how but it is undeniable that they are still holding and even capable of tactical advances.  However as many from this individual’s camp are prone to do, there is a double standard against Ukraine in just about all things. I am willing to bet Russia winds up taking about as much as Ukraine re-took last summer.  To them this is a clear sign “Russia can never be beaten!”  Meanwhile when Ukraine did it last summer, “see they will never push Russia out!”  It really doesn’t matter what happens the conclusions are always the same.
Ukraine is holding on just as well, if not better than Russia.  The UA is undergoing reforms.  The West is slowly getting its act together - this NATO collective mechanism for support is a good idea, if it doesn’t get weighed down in bureaucratic sludge.  Russia is not “getting better” by any stretch.  Advances come at horrendous costs.  Losses continue to stack.  They do appear to have some concerning glimmers of C4ISR daylight but they never really coalesce.  Ukraine continues to demonstrate significant strategic strike acumen.
As to the finish line…who knows?  Could Russia operationally collapse…sure, they have twice before.  Can the full on strategic collapse…definitely.  They did in 1917 and 1991, they can do it again.  Hell Priggy’s wild ride had real potential.  Will they?  Again, we do not know.  The second anyone from either side of this goes “this is how this war will end”, I for one, stop listening.  All we can do is hold on and hold fast.

I take offence to the term "research".  I have reviewed your thread and clearly you had a conclusion and then set about picking information to support it.  This is not "research" it is "spinning" - I have failed staff college students for doing what you are proposing as "research", applying half the facts, largely out of context.
For example: "Russia already controls large swathes of Ukraine with valuable minerals..."  and linking this back to Chinese motivation to keep Russia in this war.  This is one enormous theory hanging on very little substance.  We have been through the "Ukrainian goldmine" theory before and it was categorically debunked.
Let's take Metals:
https://wits.worldbank.org/CountryProfile/en/Country/UKR/Year/LTST/TradeFlow/Export/Partner/by-country/Product/72-83_Metals
So before this war Ukraine was already selling Russia about $1B a year in metals and about 345M to China.  A quick scan says it looks like Ukraine was doing about $10B in metal globally.  
Meanwhile China is importing $144B a year in metals globally. Mostly from Indonesia, Congo and Japan:
https://oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-product/metals/reporter/chn?redirect=true  
China does not need Ukrainian metal, they already have global access an order of magnitude beyond the entirety of Ukraine production.
The we get into detail like Titanium.  Yes, Ukraine has got healthy Titanium reserves:
https://inventure.com.ua/en/analytics/articles/titanium-in-ukraine:-military-and-economic-context#:~:text=What are the reserves of,%2C rutile – 2.5 million tons.
About 8.4 million tons.  Wow, sounds like a big number and no doubt Russia and China want to get their greedy hands on it.  Whoops:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/titanium-reserves-country-10-biggest-155049656.html#:~:text=China is the largest producer,largest vanadium-titanium magnetite deposit.
China is the global leader in titanium production. Why on earth do they want more Titanium from Ukraine on the market?
Lithium? Yes. Ukraine has about 500k tons which are largely untapped. Wow that is a big number:
https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/news-insights/lithium-the-link-between-the-ukraine-war-and-the-clean-energy-transition/
Well unless one considers global Lithium reserves - Ukraine has about half as much as Canada:
https://natural-resources.canada.ca/our-natural-resources/minerals-mining/mining-data-statistics-and-analysis/minerals-metals-facts/lithium-facts/24009
You will note that China is sitting on 2M tonnes.
And then there is the thorny issue of where that lithium is located in Ukraine:

https://www.renewablematter.eu/articles/article/ukraine-all-lithium-reserves-and-mineral-resources-in-war-zones
This is where these wingnut theories really break down.  Russia was already occupying a couple of these deposits in Donetsk.  Lets be generous and say they took enough to grab 4 new deposits.  Woo-hoo.  Now a few thorny questions:  what shape is the infrastructure in these areas look like right now?  How much is it going to cost Russia to get these sites up and running?  How much actual money are they going to make from this sweet lithium?  When can they expect to see any money?  And finally, the big one, how much does all that compare to the costs of sustaining this war?  Last count the war in Ukraine was costing Russia between .5-1 B$ per day. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_the_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#:~:text=In November 2022 it was,%24500 million to %241 billion.)
So your theory here is that China is going to spend effort, money and diplomatic points to secure access to lithium, which they do not need and is costing Russia likely far more than it is worth at this point?  In fact the same could be said for just about all Ukrainian metals.
Comparing modern day China to Nazi-Germany is just plain dumb.  Maybe pre-WW1 Germany - ignoring socialist ideologies and about four thousand years of history and culture.  The idea that China somehow masterminded this whole thing (with zero proof, I might add) is laughable.  China is stuck on the other side of this mess and is trying to deal with it on their end. They are going to pursue and promote their interests, just like we are.
Russia and Putin are throwing up all over themselves in some weird attempt to rebuild an Imperial Russia...and are failing brutally.  Sure, Russia could "hold on" until we see some sort of Armistice.  They will have gained a grand total of an additional 6-7% of Ukraine from what they controlled on 21 Feb 22.  It only cost them around 500k men, most of their modern military equipment and diplomatic/geographic isolation that may last several decades....brilliant. 

I one hundred percent agree with Holien, a thousand casualties per DAY is not something the Russians can do forever, NOBODY can do that forever.
The second thing the Russians can't do is fight this war without diesel and jet fuel. The Ukrainians need to push their campaign  against Russian oil refineries as hard as they possibly can, and then harder than that.
The one thing I would add, is drone DEFENCE. If the Ukrainians could could suddenly start knocking Russian drones out the sky wholesale, the entire Russian system would come apart in a month. This works both ways of course, so NATO needs to be absolutely sure the Ukrainians get there first.
 

Everything Steve and Bill have said above is is correct, but there is one or two more layers to it that is worth keeping in mind. Johnson understands that whatever happens in the next ~nine months, he is very unlikely to be the Speaker in the next Congress. The second issue is that according to all publicly available information Johnson is flat broke, or near as makes no matter. By broke I mean his financial declarations when he ascended to the Speakership showed a negative net worth, and only a few thousand dollars cash on hand. Throw in four kids and he has been on the ragged edge of bankruptcy for forever.
I detail all this because it has a huge bearing on his current choices regarding Ukraine and the Speakership. The best choice for absolutely every one else is bad for Johnsons post Speakership career. If he does the right thing for Ukraine and the rest of the civilized world he greatly hurts his access to the wing nut welfare system that supports the right wing talking heads. Since his entire record in congress before the last year indicates he is an apparently sincere religious conservative with extreme views on abortion, among other things. He isn't going to get a job with MSNBC or one of the Centrist think tanks. I have no idea how he squares this circle.

Yeah, he obviously doesn't know the history of Afghanistan or Czechoslovakia/Hungary or he would be making that comparison not Iraq 2003. He kinda says that if war was a computer game you could save-scum your way to a flawless victory against impossible odds. But he doesn't say how. 
War is about mistakes - you can't run a "what if" scenario based on your side running a flawless campaign with perfect knowledge of both thr enemy and yourself