If you don't have the resources in-Team, bring in a wizard or you'll get left behind in the marketplace quite quickly.
The other thing that players have been calling for is some kind of campaign system.
To me the graphics are fine. In terms of mass market appeal better graphics are obviously widely regarded as some sort of 'gold standard.' As others have noted however, it seems that these better grahics are often 'bought' at the expense of map size, unit numbers, AI sophistication or other aspects of the game that many strategy and tactics gamers will tend to prioritize. Moreever, at $85 for the whole shebang 150 pack, you are right there limiting to a fairly small target market, so doing things to broaden market appeal while the game itself is in the extremely high price range might not make much sense from a marketing standpoint.
As far as campaign: I agree 100%. This game has the potential to be by far and away the best ACW (if not 19th century warfare) game ever made. All it needs is a game process to link battles together into a dynamic campaign system. Luckly, there is no need to 'reinvent the wheel' because one of the best such tactical-contigent campaign systems of which I'm aware was already put together more than 10 years ago. I know a lot of developers don't like to admit they might get ideas from older games, but it would be foolhardy not to learn from what already is out there IMO.
Did any of you guys ever play the old
"Civil War Generals II" game? It was amazing.
I'm puzzled that many in the Civil War gaming communities don't seem to have ever played it, and developers seem to ignore its features. I dunno, maybe it was not that successful? It did have a strong online community right up into the early 2000s, which is when I got hold of it. There was an old website called something like "Nursing Corps" or something and those guys were still playing tournaments back in the day . . . holy crap, it
seems to still be active!?
It simulates on a tactical level individual battles of the American Civil War and allows one to play as either the North or South in a number of different campaigns. It links the battles together by making the losses in one battle reflect on the forces available in the next. Also, the capture of supplies during one battle allows one to purchase weapons upgrades before the next.
Couldn't compare to Norb series in terms of the graphics or the nuanced unit movement and morale dynamics. If memory serves it was turn-based and hex-map so that was a bit 'artificial.' But beyond those basic limitations, I'm gonna have to say that (as I remember) this was my favorite ACW game ever.
The reason I'd say it was my favorite was that it very effectively (though in relatively rudimentary fashion)
1. gave the player a decent amount of operational "leeway."
2. required a reasonable balance between tactical objectives in each battle and how tactical tradeoffs would impact operational situations in following battles.
Battles were strung together in sort of 'event chains' and the losses, money gained (from spoils captured) carried over between battles. If memory serves, the historical chain of events could be remapped if the outcome for a specific battle was particular ahistorically good or bad.
It didn't cover the entire war, but a significant stretch of time was represented. So basically, you fought each battle as one piece of an ongoing campaign.
The system in CWGII was actually pretty simple or rudimentary if you will. However, it worked and generated a lot of player devotion, as well as a lot of player made scenarios and campaign sets. With this team, and this game, some of the basic design principles of the CWGII engine could easily be used as inspiration to develop the single best such system ever. That right there could provide a game engine suitable for war games that span literally centuries.
ADDIT: and I just wanted to add (tongue firmly in cheek here okay)
In five years I expect you guys tto be developing the next generation warfare / social history engine that will bridge the RTS tactical battlefield elements and rich local maps of the Norb series, with something along the lines of the strategic level national planning, infrastructure and deployment system depicted in Forge of Freedom.
Of course the problem with games like Crown series and Forge of Freedom is that the strategic turn-based level in which the campaigns unfold and the battles occur can lend itself to a very, nah, COMPLETELY ahistorical sequence of events. But I tend to think there are clever ways to work around that and 'coax' a relatively historical, though perhaps alternative sequence of events into existence. I'd love to be involved in working on something like that.