I mostly like the big battles, as it is more historical in a sense. It depends on the faction I'm playing against. For instance, with factions such as the Guals or Brittons, and what are considered the "Barbarian tribes", I like the way the AI throws a lot of armies at you, that are mostly incapable of beating you on their own, while occasionally attacking you with a massive army that you are outnumbered by. This simulates the divided nature of their tribal societies, never allying with one another except occasionally for the decisive battles for key provinces.

When fighting one of the "civilized" factions, such as Greece, Parthia, or Egypt, I think that there should be more manuvering by large armies, maybe allied with another big faction, for the decisive pitched battle that will drive the enmy into his city defenses if he loses. This is much more like history because there were few nations that could afford to feild more than one or two large armies. This is why Rome was so successful, because they could come up with the resources to field multiple armies, even after defeats such as Cannae. Whereas if, say the Greeks lost a major battle, it was time to sue for terms.

As for the rebels, they are modelled pretty well for the most part. I especially like the way certain regions tend to rebel more often, such as the area around Jeruselam, or in the Barbarian territories. I do wish the rebellions would sometimes occasionally be more like attempts by the occupied areas to regain independence. This did happen during ancient times, and usually led to a major siege or battle against well equipped forces. I think the rebels in RTW/BI, etc. are mostly supposed to represent the many brigands and bandits that roamed the countryside, oftimes during periods of economic hardship such as happen when your treasury get low and discontent grows among your population.

Good poll,