Fighting in woods

[Subotan]

It's totally unrealistic, forcing you to fight and direct orders from the ground level, rather than soar above the battlefield like an allseeing eagle. It totally ruins the historical experience, acting historically, for me.

[Jikot]

It's totally unrealistic, forcing you to fight and direct orders from the ground level, rather than soar above the battlefield like an allseeing eagle. It totally ruins the historical experience, acting historically, for me.

I know army commanders did not have the "soaring eagle" overview we have in the game, but don't forget that once a battle had started, they also did not have that much immediate control over any troops which were not in their close vicinity.

Typically different flanks, troop types or even small regiments would have their own commanders who ideally adhered to the orders the general issued before battle as closely as possible.
These more junior commanders would improvise and let their own tactical skills shine in the absence of (or in spite of) in-battle directions from the general or their more immediate superior.

In the game, the player is the general, the regiment commander, and the soldier; and he is charged with micromanagement of all troops deployed on the field. Strategy is determined almost exclusively during combat (barring pre-battle deployment layout), not outlined beforehand.
This is why we need the overview, simply because units cannot be trusted to make tactical decisions of any kind; besides fighting to their or their opponent's breaking point and chasing routers.