One thing I will say here is that I think I see where TW is coming from on this one. We need to look at the AI issues from a single player perspective.
Assume that we get what we ask for, and players get total control of which weapons/gear to use. We have buttons to toggle shield use, spear use, etc. If players make use of these new controls, then presumably it's because the AI wasn't selecting the correct gear/item themselves for the situation. If the AI already did the correct thing, there would be no need for the controls, right? It then follows that the AI that the player fights against will ALSO be making those sorts of incorrect choices, and giving the player weapon controls only serves to give them an advantage over the AI. There isn't anyone telling the enemy AI to weapon switch in single player games. In this situation, the ideal solution isn't to give the player more control, it's to fix the AI so the player doesn't NEED control.
We see cases like this in this very thread, where pikemen in a shieldwall are standing there holding their pikes with shields on their back. Or when enemies are engaged in melee, and a player riding in on a lone horse forces all of the enemy infantry to pull out spears. Clearly these are AI defects, and giving players control won't stop enemy AI pikemen from forming shieldwalls with their pikes out. TW is much better served by fixing the underlying AI so that players can't game the system in single player OR multiplayer.
The thing I think that isn't addressed by that argument is that in some situations the player may be planning to do something that the AI cannot forsee or that is suboptimal. Like maybe as an intimidation tactic you want to put your shields away and just run straight at the enemy with pikes out. I think these plays should be allowed, so I still favor giving optional control to players, but I totally understand wanting to address AI issues first and foremost so that manual control isn't really needed.
Assume that we get what we ask for, and players get total control of which weapons/gear to use. We have buttons to toggle shield use, spear use, etc. If players make use of these new controls, then presumably it's because the AI wasn't selecting the correct gear/item themselves for the situation. If the AI already did the correct thing, there would be no need for the controls, right? It then follows that the AI that the player fights against will ALSO be making those sorts of incorrect choices, and giving the player weapon controls only serves to give them an advantage over the AI. There isn't anyone telling the enemy AI to weapon switch in single player games. In this situation, the ideal solution isn't to give the player more control, it's to fix the AI so the player doesn't NEED control.
We see cases like this in this very thread, where pikemen in a shieldwall are standing there holding their pikes with shields on their back. Or when enemies are engaged in melee, and a player riding in on a lone horse forces all of the enemy infantry to pull out spears. Clearly these are AI defects, and giving players control won't stop enemy AI pikemen from forming shieldwalls with their pikes out. TW is much better served by fixing the underlying AI so that players can't game the system in single player OR multiplayer.
The thing I think that isn't addressed by that argument is that in some situations the player may be planning to do something that the AI cannot forsee or that is suboptimal. Like maybe as an intimidation tactic you want to put your shields away and just run straight at the enemy with pikes out. I think these plays should be allowed, so I still favor giving optional control to players, but I totally understand wanting to address AI issues first and foremost so that manual control isn't really needed.