Define "better AI"

[Zakor]

I think that even schizophrenically unpredictable random commands would perform better than the current AI. It would turn the fights into something a bit less formulaic.

[BrutalDictatorship]

better AI= units not getting all jumbled up at the gates during a seige, bumping into eachother for 20 minutes while every ranged attack on earth just rains down on top of them...only to watch them then yell "RUN!!" and route up the hills.

this is one example of "better AI" just for starters.

I don't think ancient armies had that formation in their playbook

[HarunTaiwan]

Better AI means archers don't charge battle lines.

Phalanxes should behave like phalanxes.

Skirmishers should skirmish.

It's not the hard to explain, but could be hard to implement.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

The prime objective of AI should be suspension of disbelieve.

I fully realise it'll be some time yet before AI can match a human player. But atleast it'll has to fake knowing what it's doing to a credible level. I have no big problems with the AI not being able to defeat my wave of uber skirmishers. But I do demand it tries. Every time it just sits there hoping I will run out of ammo before it runs out of men:
I don't demand that it should be very good at breaking into a town, but every time I see it standing infront of my towers until killed:
It doesn't have to be succesful at repelling my sieging attacks. But every time I concentrate all my forces on a breach and 50% of the enemy troops guard intact sections of wall on the other side of the town:

It doesn't have to be a tactical genius or even mildly competent even, AI can never be truely challenging to a competent player. It just has to prevent me from going GAH! every battle. I want to grab victory by the throat, not have it gifted to me on a silver platter by the opposing force.