What are the most and least historically accurate aspects of warfare in AOE2?

First let's start with accurate.

Trebuchet Wars. They were common part of Sieges and Superior Mongol trebuchets was crucial in destroying Chinese trebuchets which left their cities vulnerable.

Terrain advantage choosing a battlefield was crucial for any general to give his army best chance. Mobile armies like Mongols loved open fields while archers preferred hill advantage for better visibility and range. Even armies after being defeated often took the high ground to discourage a chasers.

As for the historically inaccurate aspects, my picks are:.

Siege: mostly there was no way to take a Castle without taking heavy losses so invading force were forced to lay Siege and their primary goal was to starve the Castle inhabitants before their army ran out of supplies. And mostly sieges were bound to fail because defenders would take all the food around their Castle leaving Invaders in a vulnerable position.
Also catapults, mangonels and onagers were not coommn on battlefields because they were heavy, needed to be assembled and disassembled to use and slow to reload.

Raiding Yes raiding was an essential part of warfare in medival ages but it wasn't sending your cavalry to kill peasents, destroy some keeps and castles and die. Raiding force was rewarded with loot which included gold, slaves (men and women) and any other thing which could be valuable. Raiding in AOE don't give you resources, it just slows down your opponent.

Naval Warfare: it was basically extension of land warfare. Guys jumped from on ship to others to fight their opponents and ramming was a common method to destroy a ship.

What are your thoughts?