So aside from the vague response of "Improved AI" could you tell us what you would want to improve about it? Everyone already knows the AI sucks, so what could be done to make it more... shall we say... human?
I'd personally like to see the AI more as a learning module, think of it as a complex game of chess. The AI sends a unit forward to scout/skirmish, you meet it, the AI evaluates the situation and sends it's next best option to secure it (or keep you at bay). Whilst doing this, the AI spots your main battle line and by a rough estimate, determines what forces you have, and the best way to counter it. The AI determines that because you are holding a good defensive position, it might be better to split forces and try to draw your army into two different quadrants, whilst keeping a force of cavalry hidden from you're eyes as best it can. When your battle line decidedly splits to meet your enemies, the cavalry burst out of the forces, and right into the flanks or rear of your rear... game set and match... AI. The better battle expirience an AI general has, the better it can evaluate the situation in which it faces. So a good general doesn't boost so much as moral(only a really influencial general can boost moral), as probability of winning in an open engagement against you by doing nasty tricks, and the like. Also generals need not be close to a unit to get the job done, the General can keep a respectable distance from the main battle, but you/it will send couriers to lieutenants for orders, the further the distance between the general and the battle, the longer it takes to relay a message.
Bookmarks