You are aware that the AI gets a massive advantage on ridiculous right? The more you ramp up their difficulty the less they have to worry about monsters. This is obviously intentional.
Oh I'm totally aware of that.
But do you mean that the AI settling early in the game near a Dragon/Drake/Haunter/Bones Ogres/Cindercorpses/etc armies and not having to deal with it for the rest of the game is normal? But when I do capture those cities, now I have to deal with those groups since they find me more appropriate as a target even though their is now an EPIC army in this city and no longer nothing or a wounded hero or 4 horsemen? And when I don't cap them then they are safe; (sorry but they AI does not have garrisons everywhere, even in R/R). Why shouldn't it be adressed? I just can't recall the number of times where mind-buggling immunities take place over AI cities, pioneers, armies in situation where it shouldn't. I'm fine with the AI getting away with some of these situations, just not 95% of the time for no good reason.
I have seen many AI cities razed by monsters
Fortunatly me too. I also have seen many many many many (many) more instances where cities/outposts should be destroyed and aren't.
It just shows how bad the AI is at choosing city location right now. The difficulty settings cannot overshadow the fact that the AI is getting away with too much. Utltimatly this hurts the "wild world / wild lands" side of things when you witness monsters wanderings around without purpose for a couple of hundred turns while they should actively seek revenge on those who casted them away.
I usually play on challenging AI with normal-hard monsters, my militia can handle the vast majority of monster attacks on my city that happen (usually just a random bear cub or some mites).
From 3xSkath groups onward your militia is dead. Difficulty does not change anything to groups your cities can't handle without garrisons.
What I modded in my example was only the number of lairs, not their strength, so it took the normal tendency for monsters to attack and doubled it, meaning the AI was being attacked so often it couldn't recover or expand and just crumbled beneath the monsters. Clearly they are not at all safe from monster attacks, even in areas of the map you haven't scouted.
Read your 4th reply again and mine that follows.
That tells you what exactly?
That one of their army got destroyed by monsters.
Also the AIs are pretty much always at war with each other, their power levels fluctuate every turn, they lose battles and cities to each other very often, trying to gain any information about monster attacks from that is futile.
Ahem... "As stated above, everytime the AI or yourself loose troops, it/you drop points in power rating. If this faction is not at war then the loss can only come from monsters".
AI pretty much always at war? No. Completly situational. If you play on crowded maps like in Daynarr's screenshot then getting a weak AI or even multiple AIs wiped out early by monsters is bound to happen, as well as getting them to war each other because they are covetous of their neighbour's lands is normal and it hardly stands for any solid evidence on the matter.
I have seen many AI cities razed by monsters, even on non-modded game settings (with challenging AI). So by that logic there's a heavy bias for monsters to attack AI cities instead of player cities, right?
Again, this is not a new problem. This is a long time standing issue that LH inherited from FE, you can find plenty of evidence in several forum posts where this is discussed. If you don't want to believe me, then that's your prerogative, although I really hope that it can be adressed soon enough.
As for the 1st issue I put forward with stacking units, I do wish people at Stardock got their eyes on it as it is no lesser issue.