I would like to be able to adjust treaty lengths, and tell them I am going to break a treaty.

I think it's kind of ridiculous that a merchant can just appear out of thin air anywhere in your territory:

"Yo Bilkins, we need some ceder longbows before we attack that fire-breathing cave drake over there!"

Bilkins: "no problem, the merchant is standing right behind you, and there's another one by that rock about 20 feet back, there was also one by the fig tree, the alligator swamp 200 yards north, on that mountain top over there, by the coast 6 miles back, near that rift over there .. I also have one in my back pocket, all I got to do is pull him out and he's here already, wallah!"

Sorry, being able to access a merchant or item store from anywhere in your territory is just ridiculous to me & takes away from the game. In fact, I think item shops should only be available in towns where a merchant building has been constructed, no merchant, no access to goods.

You can sign a non-aggression pact and enter other AI lands. Being able to stroll next to an AI capital with an uber stack without declaring war and just sneak attack it would simply make the game unplayable .. the AI is already a military pushover, why excacerbate this?

Adjusting treaty lengths is a good idea. I've never had a problem breaking a treaty by declaring war. I don't see anything wrong with keeping players to their agreements. 

Moving an army through another players sovereign territory without permission is how you get a war started.  Belgium anyone?

The AI would be a pushover only because the AI is a pushover already.  If it recognizes the hostile act for what it is, it will respond accordingly, declaration or not.

Moving troops through another nation without permission should come with stiff diplomatic penalties, the other sides should recognize your lack of respect for sovereignty, the side you've invaded should be particularly pissed off about it as it's their sovereignty you've decided to ignore.  The more troops you're moving, the worse the fallout gets.

Declaring war should require that you have no troops inside their sovereign territory already.  Attacking without a declaration is a sneak attack.  Moving inside and then declaring war would be a poorly designed end run around reasonable diplomacy mechanics.

Sneak attacks should come with massive relation penalties.  The side that sneaks up on another is the first side the others would want to get rid of.  Your allies will drop you like a bad habit, you aren't trustworthy.  The same goes for breaking treaties, it should hurt like hell.

Declaring war on someone invading your territory should come with none of the normal penalties, it's a justified attack.  Any defensive pacts they have would be ignored as they were the aggressor.

OK.  I know this makes no sense at all from a gameplay standpoint and I can't think of a way to mitigate the way I feel about it . . but playing the role of the sovereign (as an individual character walking around the map) and the all-knowing sovereign that sees what every city is doing at a moments notice.

I get that *I* am also the puppet master of every character& and every city but the mix of the two blows my mind sometimes. Having governors in the cities might mitigate the off-ness I get.

I'm confused.  I can only access the merchants when I am inside or adjacant to A settlement.  Did I miss an 'update?'

In another thread somebody pointed out that you can press ctrl "s" or just "s" and an item shop would magically appear in your square if in your territory. I thought this was a cheat code or hack, but apparantely it was an intended design feature from what someone else said in another post.

Units are too slow in this game, the devs made rules under the wrong assumption that having slow units gives a sense of epic. Then they feel forced to create other artificial rules to make things feel right or at least bearable. Having omnipresent merchant is one of them, since going back and forth from the city would really be annoying when you have just 2 movement points. They created teleport out of frustration of not being able to move fast enough (which definitely spoils the sense of epic)... teleport is the element that spoils the game for me actually, if I have to pick one.

"Usually" but not always. There are games that go the other end of the scale and take "simulation" to a whole new level. There are even "physics" modeling software apps for games that take the whole concept of "realism" to the extreme. In fact, imo, I think most game players expect games to be in the ballpark-zone, so to speak, of logic as to gameplay.

Many of the arguments/problems that people post about in this forum are "breakdowns" of "logic" at some level. For example: the heirs with unbelivable mana or 15 movement, teleporting at a cost of 2 mana, maces being no different from swords in this game, overpowered archers, buildings that require "food" to maintain (instead of people requiring food), and most other arguments that I read about.

Even in a fantasy RPG it comes down to some minimum level of "logic" and realism that players come to expect. My opinion is that having a merchant appear from anywhere (regardless of "gameplay" ease) is unrealistic & is more of a distraction than a positive thing. I haven't used "s" since I found out about it, but that's just me. Being able to buy a slew of potions of healing & speed just before crossing the border & fighting that big fight with Kuhla Kahn of Yithril is just ... I don't know .. I just don't have the words. Gameplay is not the word I would use to describe it (maybe "gamey"), broken or overpowered is more accurate from my POV. 

I'm sure that there are a certain percentage of players with the opposite viewpoint, but I would be willing to bet $20 that a majority of strategy gamers subscribe to this pov even if they're fantasy RPGrs. 

Black-Knight has a good point about units being too slow.

I can agree with this, but even magic has some level of logic associated with it. For example: you would expect the mana (essence) cost of spells to be proportional to its capability. This is logical & reasonable. Something like fire dart that does less damage should only cost 2 essence whereas immolation (or whatever that spell is called) costs 6 essence but has a wider range of effect & does more damage. Also, raising monsters that are stong in-and-of-themselves and who can cast spells on their own should be proportionally more expensive (an earth giant costs 15 essence instead of 5). So, even magic has some minimal "logic" to it that player's come to expect .. what was the first thing players did when they felt "teleport" was overpowered & broken at 2 essence? ... they increased the cost to a more "logical" and "reasonable" 15 mana (the percieved "value" of the spell).

Being from a tactical strategy-game background, I sort of equate magic with artillery. A fire dart is roughly equivalent to a bazooka which should be less expensive than an 81 mm bn. mtr. fire mission which is analagous to immolation.

Exactly my point, it comes back to some minimal level of "logic" and "realism".