With comments about the AI in the critics' reviews, I thought it worth raising this concept - how well could you turn your approach to campaign strategy into a flow-chart type method?

If it's actually feasible, it gives a more detailed route to discussing strategies and could potentially prove useful to anyone trying to modify the AI approach. More than that, it's sort of interesting to think carefully about what you take into account when playing.

It could also be funny to rigidly follow a plan that turns out to have at least some daft elements (e.g. forgetting any need for defence / ignoring enemy armies approaching your settlements (you could intend to do that of course))

In TW games to date my approach against the AI usually seems quite straightforward:
- react to immediate threats from approaching armies
- work out who my main opponents are and try to build/maintain an alliance against them
- focus on knocking out an existing enemy
- plan conquests to make my empire a prettier shape

That's quite basic and there's a lot of fleshing out I'd have to do to make it even vaguely complete (only worth it if anyone else thinks its a sensible idea / also intends to fritter time away on this).

Looking at where you get limitations from the game experience too - the immediate threat part can be a lot less important if you know you can probably beat much larger enemy armies and anyway they'll probably just mill around - when looking at human-human interactions in a hotseat campaign, peace treaties and deals are of great importance but in previous games haven't always been overly sensible/reliable.