What made M:TW superior to R:TW?

[Hermano]

Well, I really tried to like R:TW, somehow I couldn't. On the other hand I just can't stop playing M:TW, now that I installed it again - it's just too much fun.
I suppose my main gripe with R:TW are the historical inaccuracies. The pharaonic egyptians, the three roman factions, german phalanxes, british battle chariots, and all the other fantasy units. While M:TW is far from representing medieval times correct it is much closer to a simulation, R:TW always felt too gamey to me, I'm a history nerd. Of course R:TW has many areas where it is superior, especially the graphics and battle speeches, but it misses something that creates the enjoyment for me. Of course that does not mean that I hate R:TW or don't want others to enjoy it.
There were other things I disliked: the (imho relative to M:TW) weak battle AI, the rebel hunting, the movement of lot's of small armies and reinforcements, there is much more micromanagement involved, playing large empires got tedious. The huge, epic battles of M:TW are rare in R:TW. Thus RTR and BI didn't really catch me either.

I'm curious if it will be like that with M2:TW too, it does look gorgeous, but the visual alone wears off fast for me... Of course I will give it a try.
Cheers,
h


Edit: I just read the CA bashing and part of the 'whining' thread, I haven't been around for some time.
So please don't understand this post as bashing or whining, it's not meant that way. I just tried to explain (also to myself) why I prefer M:TW. I have no gripe with CA, I enjoy M:TW too much for that.