Warhammer has zero strategic mechanics and the campaign maps are boring.

Players spend way more time on the campaign map than they do in battles. And yet surprisingly there is little strategic depth or options at the campaign level. This is even more surprising when you consider games like Civilization/ Paradox games are games set entirely on the strategic map. Yet they're able to keep players engaged for hours.

When I say strategic mechanics, I mean choices that result in a tradeoff. I do not consider "press x button to spend x resource" a campaign mechanic. In Civ V, the early game represented this best. If you focus on food, you can grow your cities tall, but at the cost of claiming new lands. Building settlers helps you expand, but weakens your security posture etc... As a player you had to choose what was the best path forward.

In WH3? Build your farm, then build your economic building. The province system makes it worse cause you know where the chokepoints are and what to build in each settlement ahead of time. Zero depth and that limits replayability.

The reason people love the Chorfs is their mechanics actually offer trade offs... you need to decide what settlement type you want to put down. Balance your resources (too many interns causes control problems). The convoy mechanic requires you to make choices as well. Even the Tower of Zharr, press button to spend X resource-- there are tradeoffs because other factions can vie for the seats.

I hope CA can focus on this when 40K rolls around. But it seems a big focus is still on getting the battles right-- which I understand. But like, more than half the game is done on the strategic map...

Also the battle maps in WH3 are ass. Please stop putting random trees and uneven terrain if you want gunpowder to be a big part of the gameplay. Give some indication that gunpowder units are not firing other than a tiny orange arrow above the unit card.