About Generals:
Its ridiculous easy to make big armies to be hardest to control than smalls ones. Your General with 50% leadership will manage a small army perfectly and give it a big bonus, while you enemy General with a 50% too, but with a big army will not, and would give no bonus.
Problem solved!
More unpredictable -> more defensive -> more boring
Your goal should be interesting strategy, not boring "overtime".
"I don't know how much CS they have unless I pour hours into the game, then when I know I'll do the same thing I did before"
Yes but:
More predictable->more boring
To know ALL about you enemy not create 'interesting strategy', but boring strategy.
They have 4345CS, I have 3243CS. It's they turn to loot my regions, and my turn to wait in a city... Tax day! Now I got 5543CS and they only 4013!!! It's they turn to withdraw and wait in a city and my turn to burn their regions... With some luck I will destroy some left-behind unit!... Not very trilling!
...
Yes, with more limited information, bad Generals will do NOTHING if they don't now ALL about the enemy, they will not take any risk (the same way they play now)... and they will lost wars.
And good Generals will know when to take risks and will win wars...
Honestly, right now, the wars are a bit booooring. The only 'variable' is, for the attacking army, how many nobles will not move, and will miss the battle.
If unpredictability is not good for the game, Then We must eliminate the battles. The army with more CS win, and lost a 10%, the army with less CS loss and loss 50%... You think this will make wars better?
THIS IS A GAME, AND GAMES NEEDS UNPREDICTABILITY... If not, we would be playing chess!!!