This, I believe, is a MUCH better way of analyzing and evaluating GC III's AI than writing "I think the AI should be like so and so."
Valid posts in this thread should include a COMPARISON to another AI along with analysis of different AI behavior across games. Evaluating GC III's AI in ISOLATION is pointless and silly.
For example:
Civ IV's AI is better at setting rally points for creating stacks of doom. Civ IV's AI consistently creates armies by setting rally points to a city within its cultural borders. These cultural borders PREVENTS the human from picking off the AI units as they move to their rally points.
Due to the lack of borders in GC III, it becomes MUCH HARDER to determine where to set rally points. As a result, a lot of times the AI sets rally points in silly places, which allows the human to pick off straggling units moving to the rally point.
In other words, the concept of cultural borders is a MAJOR advantage the Civ IV's AI has over GC III's AI. Not having this feature actually cripples GC III's AI in comparison to Civ IV's AI.
My proposed solution to this problem is either:
1. Establish the concept of cultural borders similar to the way Civ IV did it.
2. AI should set its rally points to its worlds near its shipyards. That way there is less transit time and less chance of getting picked off by an intelligent human. It has the added advantage of protecting the world from attack.