I think that having to many features/options isn't a problem for a well written AI. I am writing an AI for a hybrid RTS/TBS right now and my game is fairly complex, its very similar to the layout of Elemental's combat system. The key to writing a good AI for a game where the AI behaves like a player, is to write the AI as if it is a human being, instead of a machine. Personalities, impulses, desires, strategies, all of these should be the core of the AI, and while doing optimizations and calculations is important it shouldn't be relied upon too much to make decisions.

I would love to talk with Frogboy about designing AI but I understand if he is too busy!

Well... yes and no.

To begin with, I've written a large post on AI fundamentals elsewhere in the forums.

But, 1) AI can absolutely surpass it's creator.

It's like saying a computer cannot perform computations more complex than it's programmer.  That's hardly true.  It would also imply that the programmers of Deep Blue are far and away the absolute grandmasters of chess.  This is also false.

The problem is the underlying statement "uses the creator's logic".  You have to actually understand how decisions are made and WHAT an AI actually is, in order to make sense of that.  And to be completely honest, I'm not entirely sure that you do.

It must be understood that mathematics and logic are closely related languages.  If any part of that statement is a concept which strikes you as untrue, there's no need to read any further.

Under an absolute system, there are truths and falsehoods.  1 is less than 2.  1 and 1 is not 3.  And so forth.

From this, we can build more complicated statements of truth and falsehood.  1 and 3 make 4.  4 is greater than 1.  4 is greater than 3.  Therefore the sum of two positive integers is greater than either integer alone.

From there, we create futher complexities - conditional statements.  If the sum of two values is greater than 6, then it shall be performed.

And that, at the fundamental level, is the actual Logic used by an AI.  Logic is the only Logic there is.  Anything else is Illogic.

Where the creator's input comes in is two fold: the application of rules and the assignment (and calculation) of values.

If at war, then:

If value of current army is equal to or less than X, then increase until value is X+10

To determine value, reference units available to chart 1 (value of units)

If value of current army is greater than X, then:

Compare value of current army to value of neighboring factions

If value of current army, etc....

More complicated forms include a consideration of the likelihood of an event to discount the value of an event, and so forth.  To really get a more in depth discussion, search for an AI thread under my name.

So actually, the creator's skill is, largely, irrelevant.  They need be able to create the proper conditional rules and such that enable an AI to 1) perform various tasks, and 2) know when to perform various tasks.

You could be the best starcraft or TF2 or whatever player around - doesn't mean you can create a really good AI in the same game.  And you can be a really really bad player at a game, and still create a very good AI.  Which happens frequently - because an AI program is just that - a program.  A set of instructions, performed step by step.  It's humans who deviate constantly, who write and rewrite rules as we go, who make irrational decisions and attempt to rationalize them.

At worst, the AI is unrefined.  The sets of rules it follows is complete (in that it works at all), but lacks in variety (in that it does not know to do certain things).  The table of values it references for decision making is likewise unbalanced - the AI over values some things, and completely devalues others in a manner that far and away most humans would not agree with under most circumstances.

But this also leads me to 2) just because you create something doesn't mean you are good at it.  What does it take to be a programmer? or a game maker?  Well, the ability to code instructions in a machine language.  That's one person.  Then there's art.  That's another.  A writer.  A guy who simply thinks things up.  Another guy who turns imaginary things into discrete things.  A set of guys who run through make sure it all works.  Another set that make sure things aren't unbalanced.  So on and so forth.

But just because, for example, you wrote (a portion) of the code that is the game, doesn't mean you are awesome at it.  It doesn't give you any special ability or insight, or any of that.  Chances are, in any online game you've played with strangers, you have, at one point or another, played with someone involved in making games (and possibly even that game).  And called them a noob.

The best players at Quake, or WoW, or Starcraft weren't the people who made it.  They generally don't even rank in the top players (probably because they are busy making games and fixing exploits the top players find).

So cut a little slack   They are only human...

I agree. A human would not factor into 20 different calculations to see if taking this city is worth it. If your enemy just annihilated your champion and 20 soldiers, you'd want revenge. If you are to write a AI to behave more human, it should make irrational decision sometimes, but not too over-the-top, based on grudge. Sometimes the action need to be unpredictable and a bit of randomness to make the AI fun to play with.

In many cases, yes.

However, there can be surprises of the AI figuring out some things on it's own.
This here is the closest I ever got to creating an "AI" and it's quite effective at it's job. While usually not referred to as one, that's how it's built on the inside.
Unlike similiar scripts in that game I don't use hardcoded lookup tables anywhere. All they do is create an ungainly and hard to maintain script.
Instead, it assigns values to the available options in it's scope and goes for the combination of options with the highest cumulative value. That allows it to find solutions that combine two (on the surface) inferior options to achieve a superior result because the negatives of the two inferior solutions cancel each other out when used together.
All I do is give it the raw data on the available items and it draws the rest of the information from the game in realtime.
There have been... a number of surprises because it turned out to be a "throw the kitchen sink" AI that would always find some way to hurt the enemy even if it has to choose means that aren't "in the book" or even go against what are technically it's rules...

This is something you cannot realistically do with a set of rule tables where one is used after the other to refine the result until only one "best option" is left. The "bad" option would be ignored and the sub-table, where the complementary bad option resides, would never be checked.

One of the hardest things for an AI to understand is position.
The WOM AI doesn't even try. It picks a target and chaaaaaaarges! End of logic.

AFAIK there aren't even tile-specific boni in tactical battles but that doesn't automatically make headlong charges the best option.
The simplest and most obvious exploit is to have your hammer units wait for the enemy to move up exactly 2 squares and end up in front of your unit without being able to attack.
How convenient. Your first attack on the start of the next turn all but annihilates the unit. Next, please.

The AI would need to think ahead into the next turn, avoiding to move into a position that is extremely advantageous to the enemy.
In this example, do not expend all movement points when it means ending up in melee range of a strong unit without being able to attack. Because that would be stupid.
Maybe move only one square so the enemy has to come to us, expending movement points and not being able to attack twice in the same round.

Or if the enemy has no archers, why would we want to expose ourselves to begin with? Backpedal to keep the enemy at a range where he has to expend all his movement points to end up in front of our melee units. That's a cool place for the enemy to be... when our turn starts.

This is a very simple example of how the AI should deal with position vs movement. Usually there are far more factors.

But all we get is the charge of the light brigade...

As much as I love AoW (and the various mods that have given it such staying power such as Dwiggs and the 1.4 community patch), the TC AI is pretty ridiculously stupid or at least very easy to exploit.

Picture this...  you're in a city with 3 archers and a pioneer against a bunch of something nasty that can't just bypass your walls (no fliers, wall climbers, phasing units, etc).  Take said "useless" pioneer to a far gate and walk one set out.  "Holy crap," sez the AI, "we can stop battering this wall since there's an open piece WAAAAAAAAAAAAY over there!  CHARGE!"  Walk back in once they get close and they'll head right back to whatever piece they were previously wailing upon since it's now weakened (unless you have some form of repair spell going).

Granted it is smart enough to avoid the obvious stupidities like shooting it's own units due to obstructions but will happily do spells that damage all units but the caster...  including their own.

What we need is for it to figure out "I have X, they have Y. Using X does P damage. To use X, I can do Z. Doing Z puts me in A amount of danger." and weigh different possible Zs with the intent to minimize A while maximizing A. Among many other things. The more we can let the AI work on general information and not specifics, the more adaptable it can be.