Its always a constant struggle to make good AI the real task is to make it more human and by that I mean it has to have to capacity to make mistakes like we all do, every player has done stupid things mid battle or poorly formed up their army or attacked when they should defend etc.

Real life generals made mistakes but thats what makes them human and the point is that generals should act more like their traits suggest, if an AI general is an excellent defender, why would he like the AI often does go and attack an army that he is best defending against? That leads to judgement, the AI reacts to much to what the player does it doesnt decide for itself and seldom takes the all important factor in battle, the inititive.

A human player is always going to be better than the AI on a normal day simply because AI hasnt been close to perfected yet, and the problem is there is no variety. You take 100 AI generals and put them in the exact same situation as each other and I bet £100 they do practically the exact same thing as each other, the absence of AI with independant thought is the reason there is always a gap in class of player against AI.

Even though AI is far from perfect I think it could have definately been better in RTW I mean what is the point in traits if the AI does not use them? if the general is a coward why does he charge head first into your army personally? it makes no sense.

So my definition of "better" AI is AI that has variety in thought and its execution.