What? We aren't talking just the tactical map AI in TW series which while not horrible is far from level of other similar RTS games. TW is basically a strategic game with an RTS inside it. The strategic AI is terrible, much worse than almost any other major game I can think of.
Funnily enough, I've always viewed it the other way around since I first played Shogun: TW. CA doesn't make strategy games, they make tactical battle simulators for squad to platoon sized base units with a skin-thin strategy wrapping. At this they used to be second to none. That the strategy wrapping underperformed on all levels used to be a minor issue since you got fun battles.
In other words: Centurion: Defender of Rome for a new generation and, like that game, great fun.
The real problem with the CA games only arises if one approaches them like a strategy games player who cares about being opposed on the strategic level.
That, in itself, is nothing new with E:TW - what is new is that over the last few iterations of TW franchise the CA developers have tried to move the game in the direction of a strategy game by increasing the strategic depth - and consistently underperforming: They have never managed to produce a TW game that was the slightest challenge on the strategic level.
Reading the CA thread on this little controversy, it seems that there's a distinct lack of understanding the differences between tactics and strategy; Given that, can anybody be surprised that some of them are willing to forgive the utterly atrocious strategic AI in E:TW because it has an overall decent tactical AI? Or that somebody fails to understand that when Johan criticises the AI in a strategy game (giving specific examples, even), he focuses on the performance of the strategic level AI?
Can it surprise anybody that some people might consider adding a shitload of data for different units in the tactical game or having a higher theoretical resolution of intersection points (contrast "all over the map" with "provinces") to represent "complexity", while merely making a game that can compete on a strategic level with somewhat meaningful diplomacy would be considered "simple"?
Heck, the same thing happens in this very forum, and you guys should know better: A HoI3 with 10,000 provinces is not inherently more complex as a game to one with 2,000, and yet there's the occasional gushing over 10,000!!!! I guarantee you that should the unthinkable come to pass that HoI3 plays less competitively than HoI2, nobody should accept "it is more complex because there are more provinces" as an excuse for the state - and here we are talking about a series that has traditionally been heavily crippled in the AI playing abilities due to being heavily scripted.
I mean, you just have to read Coldfire's post: Having a huge amount of strategic depth in a strategy game does not make it complex, nor does have a strategic AI mostly capable of dealing with that depth.
I love the earlier TW games for what they were, but it is hard for me to see how anybody who has played strategy games focusing on strategy (or even worse, grand strategy!) can consider them to be complex in a strategic sense.
I can totally understand the point of view (recently exposed on page 4, post 71 and onwards of that TWCenter thread) that TW games are "funnier and more exciting" for people who like tactical battles when compared with how Paradox games deal with it. Sure, they get carried a bit away with the analogy, but if it is the details of the individual battles that are important to you rather than the grand strategy of your nation, that view has a lot going for it.
