You have 5 seconds to explain why Rome II and Attila didn't use the exact same [flawless] mechanics as Medieval II
>huurr duuurr muh innovation
Trying to fix something that isn't broke isn't innovative
Let's go into detail…
>you can't change the tax rate for a settlement without controlling the entire province
Completely retarded gimmick that doesn't correspond to reality. If I'm Rome and I control Syracuse and Carthage owns western Sicily, then why can't I raise taxes in Syracuse?
>"Sorry governor, we want to tell our tax collectors to tax the Sicilians more, but since the border with Carthage is over that way, we can't. We just can't"
>You can't decide what units are garrisoned in your city.
If I have an extra unit of archers in my army, why can't I just send them to bolster my garrison in a nearby town?
>"B-b-b-because they need to stick with the general."
Why? They're trained soldiers, there's no reason they can't form a detachment and still remain loyal. It also ruins the mechanic of coming up with good garrison combinations to protect settlements. I think CA did this just because they were pandering to casual faggots who are too lazy to garrison settlements
Which segues into my next point
>Why can't I have small forces that aren't connected to a general?
Yet another retarded gimmick to casualize the game. You can't send a small number of reinforcements to help the general, and you can only pick generals from a retinue rather than just promoting some petty officer to lead the reinforcements to the main army. CA are utterly and hopelessly ignoring reality to push their faggy gimmick