I second these motions, and add a request for the ability to plunder the battlefield for weapons/armor and loot the baggage train. Currently there is no influx of funds as a direct result of field victories. Historically armies on campaign funded/supplied themselves largely through looting the bodies of their dead enemies and capturing baggage.
As far as the AI goes...at least for armies which historically fought using conventional tactics, I'd like to see them HOLD A FREAKING BATTLE LINE. Flanking was the classic means of victory in pitched battles for centuries, with every effort made to defend the flanks and overpower the enemy counterpart. It's hard to think of a famous battle of the Greco-Roman era that was not won/lost via a flank attack/envelopment of some sort. So I'd like to see the AI put a premium of effort into attacking/defending flanks, and of course, the way this was done historically was to vigorously maintain battle formation and deploy mobile contingents on the flanks in order to both counter enemy attacks and to threaten the enemy flank/rear. Some AI ingenuity in this area would be nice, but that's an oxymoron.
The AI could be better strategically as well...in hundreds of ways...but to name a couple, STOP marching tiny armies around the campaign map aimlessly and without leadership. AI armies should concentrate under leadership of generals and march on the enemy with some sort of cohesion. If I invade an AI nation, it should respond with all its ability to expel me rather than sending small forces every few turns. Or, it should avoid battle until it has massed enough forces and/or has me in a position that is to its advantage. Again, maybe asking too much, but hopeful.
Bookmarks