Roman AI..too agressive

[Akka]

No offense taken, because I find your response to be one of the stupidest posts I've ever read.

I mean, your main point seems to be "The AI shouldn't actually play the game, only I should". Maybe you find the idea of a hopelessly incompetent AI entertaining. I certainly don't. I want an AI that is designed to provide for a challenging game. I want an AI that is actively trying to beat me. How you can possibly manage to try and twist "immersion" into meaning the AI players should be idiots, I can't comprehend.

Whose king is the idiot ?
- The one who save his country, his throne, his family and his soldiers by making peace.
- The one makes his kingdom disappears, his family lose all power, his soldiers die and his people be conquered, by stubbornly refusing to accept the ceasefire proposed, reasoning that the faction he's at war will come back in fifty years to finish him off, because it's the rules of the game ?

And YOU are the one saying I twist a principle into meaning AI players should be idiots

As for the whole "there are 100+ provinces" concept... Do you really think that has an bearing at all? If you've spent the past X turns conquering a factions cities, and they are down to a few left, is there any reason for them to think that you wouldn't want to conquer them?

I may be wrong, but the very point of proposing a ceasefire, is to end a war.
So if I'm proposing a ceasefire to the AI, they should reject it because they consider that I've no good reason to end the war, and as such my peace proposition is inacceptable ?

I mean, if you truly don't want to, you'd go for protectorate status.

Well, they refuse as much to be a protectorate as peace.

Additionnally, why should a war necessarily ends with the complete conquest or the reduction to protectorate status to one belligerant ? Is it how you see the game ?
My, how shallow.

Sure, in terms of realism, in that situation, it would make sense to make a ceasefire. Because you've actually got to worry about your people and their future. But this is a game. There is no future. Putting that into the game when the player isn't going to play that way would be stupid.

Well, that's a reasoning good for Risk and one-dimensional players. You don't need the cultural and historical background of RTW to play such games. In fact, you don't even need diplomacy in such games, as diplomacy is something that existed BECAUSE our lives aren't a game.
But here is a game with this historical and cultural background, and which emulate diplomacy precisely to give these realistic options. So dumbing them down back to the Risk level, is a waste and is what is actually stupid.

All in all, your reasoning is "what is realistic is stupid, because it's not reality, it's a game". Well, that's your loss, but there is plenty of people that actually see that the point of having an immersive game full of such historical, cultural and realistic detail, is precisely to make use of them and to try to emulate the situation the game itself pretends to be in.
There is no point in pretending you're impersonnating the ruling family of an historical empire, with a bountiful of realistic descriptions and details and mechanism, if it's to throw all this out of the windows and go back to a Pacman-like reflexion-level.

How are you defining "realistic"? What would make diplomacy more "realistic" for you? And how many players do you think handle their diplomacy "realistically"?

All these players that see the point of having these features in the game.
And all those who have more immersion abilities than an amoeba, and are able to simulate like if they "were there".
Which means, quite a lot in fact.