Thanks for this. You posted this just as I made my last comment on this, so I missed it then.
I think the decision, whatever its source, was a very short sighted one. One of the reasons I, and I'm sure many others, spent so much effort to provide constructive design feedback and post screen shots and videos to give specific feedback this cycle was because of those blogs from OG and Czar last year.
Those blogs, more than anything else, told us we had been heard and could help make a positive difference if we took the effort to provide specific feedback in a constructive way over the course of a development cycle. The choice not to engage us similarly this year, in my view, dampens that a bit.
Plus, they've built so much depth, it's going to be hard for people to really dig in to it and understand it, especially the wider audience. This is the community to engage and educate on that stuff so we can do videos that educate the broader customer base. Czar has said many times he doesn't have the time to do all that himself, and the same is true for OG.
I hope this feedback is taken in the constructive spirit I intend, and that, even after release, there will be some effort to provide in depth content about the game play AI improvements as soon as possible. After all, Mike Wang punted on some of those questions, deferring to Scott and Nino, only now it turns out they're not part of the communications plan after all.