Martok's review makes a lot of good points. For example, I agree that M2TWs balancing of missiles is nicely judged and the sieges are far better than the earlier titles. I usually lose siege defences.

You can't judge M2TW based on RTW - if anything, it is even more unfair than judging MTW by STW. For example, the 10 second battles jibe is no longer applicable - move speeds are closer to MTW than RTW and morale levels are pretty beefy. Battlefield terrain in M2TW is beautiful and sometimes very important.

I suspect the tactical AI maybe better than MTW. At least, I am finding VH battles surprisingly challenging without them skewing the stats on higher difficulties as was done in the earlier titles. I think this is because of the better AI.

M2TW avoids some of the really big problems of MTW SP that tend to be forgotten:
(a) the reinforcement tedium of most battles (kill the first wave, then endure an hour or two of seeing off several waves of low morale, leaderless losers);
(b) the broken economic model/endgame (get a sea-wide trade network and you've won the game)
(c) the dire AI army composition on early (peasant armies etc)
For these reasons, I think M2TW probably provides a better SP experience out of the box than MTW on early.

Like RTW, M2TWs strategic AI does still lack the killer instinct that the strategic AI had on the Risk-style STW/MTW maps. And for that reason, it's harder to lose the game. But it is sharpened up considerably over RTW and has given me something of the feel of STW/MTW in that you can't advance into one province without worrying that you are exposing another to AI counter-invasion.

Personally, I find M2TW more "realistic" than MTW. At least, there are more units, they are less generic and lead to more historically varied armies. For example, the English will tend to be archer heavy, complete with nifty stakes. All factions have unique units and while some - e.g. Russia - are pretty ahistorical, most seem to have historical character and flavour.

It's hard to judge the unit balance given the shield and 2H bugs, but I am cautiously optimistic. I rather like the charge dynamics: a good cavalry charge is very powerful, but is tricky to pull off and cavalry are vulnerable if bogged down.

I've got mixed views on the agents, but generals are better developed in M2TW than MTW. They don't give the same unbalancing stats advantage (and neither does experience for that matter), but are more recognisable and more fun to role-play. On balance, I think the M2TW missions are better done the "glorious achievements" of MTW: more of them, more short term rewards and punishments.

Diplomacy is also better in M2TW, but not always transparent - there is a logic to the AI actions (people who know how it works have managed to keep alliances and reputations), but it is tempered by opportunism and a difficulty-related tendency to have worsening relations with the player over the course of the game.

It's still too early for me to be sure about replayability. I've only played half way on two English campaigns - both cut short by a decision to wait for a patch. People might be right that the game has less of a hook than MTW - or maybe it's just diminishing returns to playing what is essentially the same game since STW.

I suspect people's preferences may ultimately boil down to their attitude to the abstract Risk-style map of STW/MTW and the more representational one of RTW/M2TW. For me, I greatly prefer the RTW style one - I am a historical wargamer, not a Chess player. Beyond that, I think M2TW shares many things in common with MTW. It is hard to deny the appeal of the RTW/M2TW graphics. I'm no graphics whore, but I can't identify enough advantages in MTW over M2TW to justify going back to that uglier game. I tried going back to Shogun the other day, but it was really painful to adjust to those choppy little sprites after the drop dead gorgeous models of RTR and M2TW.