What i think is wrong, not that it matters.

[Sociopsychoactive]

I agree with you. It lacks soul.

Back in R1 the game had it's flaws, sure, but what it did was make me laugh and point out silly things to people (I build an aquaduct and instead of a blurb about it's function, I get "What did the romans ever do for us! This. Thats what") and it made the traits matter as well as being interesting. My g/f still makes comments on how my faction leader, who at the age of 80, having to be tied to his horse as he is dead-drunk all the time made a rousing battle speach about killer flowers the enemy had being averted by his wonderful hats.

Humour aside, it had soul. I cared about my characters, not just because of one feature but because it had pretty much all the things from antisocialmunky's list done right, rather than done wrong. My generals looked the part and changed in appearance, rather than seeming to have a generic template for a card. The traits they got mattered to them, the armies they commanded and the empire you built, because they were game-breakingly good or bad, not just +3% to x. Their battlefield prowess was miniscule compared to the effect they had on their troops and it worked well without half a dozen buttons for abilities.

I once had a roman general I adopted at the age of 16, instantly made him faction heir as he looked just right to fill the boots of the ageing leader, while the leaders son had drink and gambling problems that would have crippled the empire financialy. The new adoptee went rampaging across the globe, built a massive reputation for himself and his people, had just the right kind of traits and stuff to be faction leader and then got himself skewered by a stray balastae bolt in a battle for some insignifacnt hovel in the arse end of the world. I actually shed a tear at his demise, especially as the faction leader died the very next turn, and the shift in power back to the idiot drunkard gambler halted my empire in it's tracks for years.

Thats what the game is missing.