"Making Ancient battles interesting" Topic

So how do you keep Ancients from getting too boring and repetitive?
I am by default a soloist (live in the mountains). Like many of us here on TMP (or so I suspect) I have many armies. Being a soloist, I have them in pairs. I have:
Macedonians – Persians/Indians
Carthaginians – Romans
Vikings – Scots
Crusaders – Islam
Swedes – Poles (circa 1620)
Front Note on rules: being an old dude who started with Warhammer Historical decades ago, I play its derivative "War and Conquest" for most of these. The exception being I play "Warriors of God" for the Crusades.
For all but one of these pairs, the setup is basically the same, infantry in the middle, cavalry on the flanks. The exception being Vikings-Scots (as neither of my armies has cavalry).
Alexander almost always setup the same way. Best cavalry (Companions) on the right and refuse the left. Hannibal was similar – Gauls on the right, Numidians on the left. These battles tend to be the same for me: while the infantry in the center get locked in, everything is decided by the right flank cavalry.
The Swedes v. Poles is similar, in that the Swedes can never beat the Winged Hussars.
My Crusaders usually get turned into pin-cushions before they can close. Infantry rarely matters, or even gets engaged. The rules are fun, but the Crusaders almost always lose.
I suppose part of the problem may be army composition as I tend to design them on what is fun to paint more than what is practical. I also just can't bring myself to do something weird like have infantry on a flank and cavalry in the center and on the other flank – just feels weird.
So, any advice on how to keep things interesting?
Any advice on alternate setups?

I know it's not possible for you, but what you lack is an agressive opponent to force you to think differently about deployment. I, too, am a solo player, so I feel your pain. We're cursed by knowing too much history and unwilling to play fast and loose with it. I've never done this, but perhaps a battle in difficult terrain, perhaps card-generated, would force us to adapt different formations. This is beginning to sound more and more like fighting with fantasy armies, but perhaps that's not a bad thing?

As another sometime solo gamer, I don't think the lack of a human opponent is the whole problem. The bigger issue is certainty.

If I know exactly what both armies are going to do before Turn 1 then the battle is almost over before the dice are rolled.

I've found that hidden objectives, random terrain, uncertain reinforcements, variable troop quality and commanders with different personalities all help. Even a simple rule that a wing might refuse an order or that reserves arrive unpredictably can force you to rethink an otherwise "textbook" deployment.

Historical armies often began in conventional formations but battles became interesting because something unexpected happened. As solo gamers we need to build those unexpected events into our scenarios.

Some ideas:

Attacking early so one side deploys without breakfast and fights hungry.

Luring off or bribing an ally.

Give one side a terrain advantage.

Crossing a river is always a challenge.

Two sides deploying in the dark or the fog or on opposite sides of a rise, and coming at each other slightly mismatched.

Flank marches. Lots of variations on this one: too early, on time, too late, too small, too worn out after the long march, struggling to cross unexpected terrain, enemy expected it and ambushed it, etc.

Feints.

Read Polybius' description of Hannibal's battles for ideas. Hannibal liked surprises – ambushes, unexpected deployment variations, attacking columns on the march, hiding men under sheep, fake withdrawals, you name it.