You need to think of game systems as trade offs. Suppose you can micromanage alliances and trading between yourself and multiple AI to give yourself twice as much income or twice as many military allies.

Now the actual battles are mostly irrelevant. Either you have tons of income and alliances and easily steamroll across the map or you have literally half as much gold and half as many allies and you get crushed. Diplomacy and trade are the only things that matter.

If you want your performance in the actual battles to matter you have to somewhat lock things down in other areas.

I played Troy and there is wood (low tier buildings) stone (high tier buildings) wheat (low tier units) gold (high tier units and favor with gods, equivalent to rites in warhammer2).

I initially really like the resource systems complexity but because you can beg for whichever resource you like from your faction's leader every 20ish turns and trade with half the AIs on the map for a slightly unfavorable deal that converts resources to whatever you want the whole resource and trade system basically amounts to having one big 'resource pool' and a bunch of busy work clicking to get what you need.

So between systems that shift the focus away from the battles and systems that end up being mostly busy work you have to really ask yourself if adding things actually makes the gameplay better or not.

Warhammer 2 is not perfect, but it is very good and very fun and I would caution people not to measure the quality of a game by the length of the feature list.

I liked what I saw in the WH3 gameplay where you could place towers and barricades in the battles. The battles have always been the best part of total war games in my opinion and improvements there are what matter most to me.