Define "better AI"

[jimmyM]

My defenition of a "better" a.i:
-one that forms a battle line, and doesn't change its mind at the last minute...especially phalanx armies need this...it was done pretty well by the medieval a.i but with romes you get some kinda brittle "clumps" of easily flankable guys wandering round after the general skewers himself-I guess the point is a more robust basic a.i gameplan.
-no more use of inappropriate units types for tasks (ref. the "suicide banzai charge" of otherwise really quite useful skirmishing/missile troops into melee..ahead of the main fight, rather than as some kind of "last reserve", also generals killing themselves far too soon (didn't happen in medieval - see "last reserve" quote/theory)
-an extra layer of complexity(which is needed) - no more units getting "target lock" and skewering themselves as a result (probably feeding into the above point)

As for campaign a.i? pheeew, where'd you start...don't envy the C.A guys with the layers of complexity involved (much as I don't like saying it maybe a risk-style map would've been better...) but definately no more lone-heirs-wandering-off-alone-to-die while armies of skirmishers grow old and get bribed away, maybe some way of getting the a.i to "batch produce" historical, balanced armies for themselves...