For the theme and setting I've settled pretty firmly on two possibilities. The first is pretty narrow and focused which is probably ideal for keeping the project scoped appropriately. The second is less well defined but has more interest to me and potential for a less more varied play experiences.
By Map by Hal Jespersen, www.cwmaps.com, CC BY 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=17667254
Stonewall Jackson's Shenandoah Campaign as it hits a number of key factors for me. The scope of the game is easy to define and understand both in terms of the forces involved and the area the campaign occurred. The American Civil War is a period I am quite familiar with and have a good store of resources to lean on for reference.
I expect the game to have two primary phases for the player divided along strategic and tactical. In this case the strategic phase would handle the movement of troops and supply if needed in the valley. The tactical phase would contain battlefield encounters that occur.
Each phase needs a level of abstraction for the game to function simply and I do consider simplicity a goal of the project. However not both phases need to be dealt with as heavily in how they are abstracted. I've found many games try to make the battles interesting and give the player tactical options but ultimate they don't feel like battles, they feel too abstract. I want to approach the battles with more flexibility towards making them a highlight to the game so they are engrossing for the player and when the opponents are brought to battle, its an exciting opportunity for the player to play out the fight.
Strategically, using a setting with strongly defined historical objectives for the historical participants helps a lot in trying to program initial goals for the forces. It doesn't allow for easy management of variables introduced by a player. I suspect this is a good thing provided the base system can cope with it. Some players want to try to reproduce history, others want to change it and both expect a good experience in so doing.
The questions I have in consideration of all this is what is the "ideal" breakdown of time for a player? 50% strategic play and 50% tactical (battle) play?
How are lopsided battles presented so they are still fin to play without being balanced in a gamey way?
There are a lot more questions to answer but we're still looking at things on a high level.
We also have an alternative campaign to consider coming in Part Two B (Shinano)
