Well I think the excessive complexity and long playtime is what keep me and probably other gamers away from war game. I would be more considered a light war gamer.
As video game, I can handle more complexity, but even video games can become over excessively complex (ex: Civilization V).
I saw people play a board game that was the recreation of the movie "A bridge too far". The counter size was 1/2" and the map size spanned on 5 tables. They have to move units with pincers It took hours just to get the setup right. And they expected to play the game in a day!?
Else I personally experienced Star Craft the board game, which had convoluted rules but there were no micro movements like found in other war games. Still, the game took 1h30 per player and could leave permanent brain damage after play.
On the other size of the spectrum, I have W1815, which take 20-30 minute to setup and play. Much more accessible and easy to pull out on the table. No need to plan for a game. I also have "Viktory 2" which is another light weight and and colonization game playable in an hour.
So personally, I am looking for games I can easily pull out if a friend comes to visit me. That implies: Short in time and little text abilities.
I don't know if it could help, but since I had an aversion for RTS because it could make me excessively stressed, I once thought: "If I could make an RTS that I would be capable of playing, how would it be".
I came up with the following draft, maybe you could extract something from it:
I would split the map in large areas. Units must be inside one of those areas. If enemy units gets in, automated battle occurs between the units in the same area. This avoid situation where the enemy is 1 square too far and just stand there and do nothing. The whole idea is to reduce excessive supervision, imbalance for wrongly placed units, etc.
Production would be automated. You would set goals for units you want to have in play: Ex: 3 tanks, 5 infantry. If any of those units dies, the base will auto produce new units until those quantities are met. So the management consist only in determining base upgrades and which unit configuration you want. Again, the goal is to reduce supervision, having to move back and forth between your army and your base.
Maybe you could use those idea for your board game. Production could work like a pool of units in "Viktory 2", your losses come back eventually. You could have maps with large areas and resolve battles à la Axis and Allies. Technologies and upgrades would change the RPS relationship bet your units and the enemy.
It's just some random thoughts. I also wanted to implement an RTS as a board game. It was a parody called Rats Craft, but I never managed to successfully design the game. Balancing special powers is also a problem. If I would do it today, I would use computer simulation to test the game. But that implies having little special text ability since it's hard to program.
You're absolutely right...I've been out here for 10 years and I've noticed the number of regular folks who post have dwindled to a fraction of what it used to be. Also, there's a reticence by many to attempt military war games.
X3M,
Many, many solid military games have very good Solitaire play. I would try them...not to win, but to experience how that genre uses a variety of mechanics in the game.
Cheers,
Joe
That said, CoH (Company of Heroes) is now on the top of my list.