I for one love the simplified maps. Camera glare should be a thing in the past, though. As long as there is enough variety in battle maps, it should be ok.

In Medieval II and Rome, when the country grew to medium-large size, the strategic element was swamped under micromanagement. And if you made a mistake (clicked your agent to walk to a wrong place), you couldn't correct it without reloading (movement points...). With less agents, less cities and less clutter on the screen, things should work pretty well. Independent, non-controllable village units (a la Civ 4) that could be pillaged for income and used as battlegrounds might be interesting, but not that important.

Forest battles could be fun, if there was an option to clearly see your forces deployed among the woods. I don't mind the enemy being consealed (that's what light cavalry is for), but I really want to know where my own forces are and to which direction they are deployed. Maybe not "realistic", but that's the most annoying thing about forest battles.

More field battles is a good thing. Although, this is actually THE period I really want to play sieges. I hope it won't be the same ol' Bash The City Walls, but that they'll have an abundance of the period's fortifications. The old style castles should still play their part, as not every castle was modernized, or at least not completely.

Then again, the "siege engine" (lol) has gotten better and better with every game.

I wonder if they have anything like coastal fortress vs. fleet battles planned... That kind of thing can be moddable (fortresses as immobile "ships") though, if they don't incorporate it directly to the game.

The four seasons would have a direct strategic impact, especially if there would be income only in the beginning of the year or end of the summer or something. (Sir! The harvest is poor! The Takeda will finally take your lands, as this is the 5th year in the row, lol! I will be honoured to be your second if you want to cut open your belly!)