I’m not interested in discussing semantics. The point you’re making is clear: “many people might get a bad impression of the game,” and based on that premise, you’re defending your idea of recalibrating the difficulty levels. But the reality is that you have no actual evidence that this is a frustration point that is driving players away. To be clear: I don’t see a problem with recalibrating the AI. What I do see as a problem is making decisions based on personal opinions presented as if they were factual premises.   Here’s another assumption without solid grounding: in your less than three months here, how many people from the community have you actually talked to in order to make that claim? How many members do you think the community has to assert that this is the “opinion of many”? And how many others don’t participate here and might hold a completely different view? The truth is, you don’t know. Yet you bring it up, assume it as a valid premise, and from there make proposals about how things "should be.”   And how do you know that the majority of singleplayer players don’t enjoy the game at its current pacing? Do you have any statistics to support that? I’ve seen new players running the game at 1.25x speed, so does that mean the game is too slow? I understand that this may be your preference, and that others might agree with you. There’s nothing wrong with having a different opinion or proposing ideas, but it would be better not to defend them based on unproven assumptions.

I see it as either you implement it with ranges (a simplification), or you consider the transport (more realism). Using both at the same time seems adding conditions over conditions. Only ranges would cause clustered buildings. Besides the reasons already given, I favor (automatic) transport because it implies the need to lay out buildings in a realistic way (to have paths to go between them).

I can interpret the moment when a production decision is made, such as clicking on a barracks and queueing up units, as a player action, and this doesn’t necessarily have to involve camera movement, it could be done using shortcuts assigned to numbers on the keyboard.  However, I’d be inclined not to classify the units that are automatically produced from that queue as player actions. 1 unit queued in each of 10 barracks can create quite a bit of noise, especially when combined with losses during combat. In terms of terminology, something like “Follow Development” might make sense. But “Follow Player” doesn’t seem entirely accurate, since the player isn’t actively clicking on or engaging with those units at that moment. The player might not even be aware of how many barracks are doing what, which ones are still producing or which ones have run out. Therefore, I think this complex tracking experience causes this feature to lose its meaning. Thanks Atrik. You’re like a roofer who finds and fixes leaks. Although I don’t approve of some mods that can introduce hidden unfairness in games like autotrain, these are still valuable touches. That said, I would have preferred if we could all play a single, shared version of the game, an improved common experience that doesn’t rely on various mods. Rather than insisting on keeping flaws, it would be a better approach to address and fix them.

@Thalatta One of the posts from the topic you've shared summs it up perfectly.  "Progression systems and other stuff that don’t belong in RTS games is what kills them. After the golden age of RTS games they started to over-complicate the formula by adding all kinds of stuff in an effort to further bring innovation just for the sake of it. When they realized RTS games became too complicated for people to bother, they started simplifying them by removing things that were good, instead of the things that were superfluous. For example, removing base building, many of the units, maps and game modes, but keeping the progression systems. So now not only you can’t just jump into an RTS to build a nice base and use all the stuff in the game, but you have to grind over time in some progression system to be able to use everything which is already scarce as a whole." Most of the RTS players are veterans of older titles. As people get older, they have little time to adapt to new complex features, and prefer playing something they already know. New RTS games are no longer simple build->expand->conquer games of old. 

I noticed that ModernGUI now has compatibility check enabled, well this in fact just a meme. Even my cat can change it, I know I didn't used the correct name for the function, but I know it was perfectly understood. Still I see players that avoid to host so others can't see they use ModernGUI/autotrain, but I know the behaviour of that as my palm hand. But well, I just don't play with those players, I do the compatibility check. Now I understand why the debate, those players are winning things they shouldn't. If some of them really use it for stats or for the units selections, the ultimate solution is put autotrain out of ModernGUI.    Good Games.