A question about the physical map

In both shogun and medieval, because each map was specifically designed there was usually a lot of tactical options. Not just rivers, but forests, valleys, small hamlets and hills.

In every version of RTW I have played up until now, however, 80-90% of all my battles take place on a square patch of flat ground with a few scraggy trees, a big spikey rock thing over near the corner and probably some hills in the distace. Obviously there are some interesting battles with a lot of hills and forests and useful things, but overall, while I think that the 'thousands of possible battlefields' thing was one of RTW's finest technical acheivements, sometimes it feels like a step backwards, and it's one of the reasons battles sometimes feel so repetitive.

I know that the EB team have put loads of effort into making the campaign map more realistic, and that this will translate into more accurate and realistic battlemaps also, but my question is, will battlefields be a little 'bumpier'?

Obviously the syrian desert and the endless steppes of the Sarmatians are going to be pretty flat, but in the interests of variety I'd like to see a lot more battles that werent just two groups of armies on a big flat plain.

i believe they made "Gaul" very very forestlike. for the rest: i can't tell..

haven't they showed a few batle map screens in one preview?
or at least it was soething similar...

I tend to agree the whole of Europe looked awfully familiar.