DR includes a rudimentary capability for programming the behavior of units. A unit can be assigned fundamental behaviors -- scout, harass, search-and-destroy -- or the gamer can set a specific behavior based on unit independence and tolerance for damage. I can create a unit in DR, tell it to scout, and then go on to doing something else as it uncovers the map for me. Or I can direct units to retreat for repairs/healing after they receive a certain amount of damage. Ah, what I wouldn't give to have my AoE units retreat to the nearest priest for a good healing!
I might add that DR also supports formations (after a fashion), something that AoE desperately needs.
Is DR a better game than AoE? No. Does DR have better unit AI and superior command-and-control? Yes. I would hate to see Age of Kings be a step behind existing game technology and design...
AoE's ultra-micromanagement leads to a video-game style of play; this severely limits the development of true strategy, since a gamer spends most of his or her time just making sure that their units aren't doing anything stupid. How many of us have had ships pull onto shore to chase some unit, or find half our army stuck on the edge of a forest?
Of course, there is the world view (espoused by Alexander Hamilton, among others) that the masses (i.e., units) are simply are incapable of doing the right thing without proper guidance from some higher authority (i.e., the gamer). I take a more Jeffersonian outlook, in that I expect my units to exhibit some form of independence and responsibility, leaving me to handle strategy.
After all, AoE bills itself as a "Real Time