Not really. In my games, the KH are destroyed by Makedonia usually, but the fight must take alot out of them, because then Epeiros usually sneaks in the back and takes most of what Makedonia had. The situation ends up being that Epeiros becomes roughly the size of Epeiros and Makedonia at the start, and Makedonia becomes the same size (in the same area...) as the KH.

Since I really only play the Seleucids in any depth, I can say the balancing around there is for the better. Parthia is an absolute monster now in 1.1, compared to 1.0. They start with two small settlements and rarely expand north like they used to in 1.0, but when they start going south, I'm practically stopping them at Seleukeia!

In 1.0, when I focused on the west, the Parthians and Baktrians played along and never backstabbed me in 80 years of gameplay until I turned east to destroy them (they expanded north and south, respectively, eventually eliminating the Saka and really thrashing the Sarmatians). Now, they not only attack me, but they do so early, and I'm so powerless to stop them. It's great fun.

In the west, the Egyptians are definately more of a challenge, as they throw better quality troops at you than before. The two extremely noticeable things in the west are:

1) Carthage doesn't try to take Hispania at all. They focus entirely on North Africa. Their few starting holdings there are then easily gobbled up by the Iberians.

2) The Romans roll over the Gauls, everytime, all the time. The Romans usually reach Normandy at around 230-220 BC