Mostly my thought is about presentation, especially thinking of these rules "vs" what I reckon is the closest thing out there, warhamster.......and getting the Paper/scissors/stone element of the interaction between different troop types to be more immedately visible. Its not just a presentation issue though.... I think its more important than that.
Having access to this forum shows thta a frequent comment is "wow, these romans are good!" But are they good against everything? Put another way, for me the real heart of what made/makes DBX such an appealing system boils down to the content of the 2 pages of combat factors, modifiers and - most especially - "QK on a more than" combat outcome listings.
These 2 pages in DBX get you thinking immediately about how varied the troop types are, how some armies could be used, all the good stuff in an easiy comprehensible way... Conversely, "Good" troops in Warhamster are "good" troops against pretty much all opposition, and the Warhamster armies / games I have tried lack flavour as there are no / few type-specific interactions. Having played one game (oops!) of AoW I suspect there are some complex interactions - but I really cant see them intuitively, and actually I am still not 100% sure they are there.
The big idea = well, The way AoW currently presents troop types is - I suspect - exactly the wrong way round.
The lists have (legionaries for example) as Heavy Foot, Superior, Drilled, armoured, Impact, Superior Swordsmen.
This puts the base size as the first part of their description, then stuff about saving throws, then movement, then onto some POAs. Why do I give a toss about base sizes - I cant see why base size (15 or 20mm deep) even matters in these rules ? saving throws - yawn...drill - oh no I say - is this a set of rules where regulars can run rings round barbarians?? ...... Only the very last bit of info, which is the superior swordsman thing - is the interesting bit.
Really, as a gamer looking at my troops (or a ruleset) means I want to know what they do, and to whom first - so they should be Superior Swordsmen, Impact, Superior, Armoured, Drilled Heavy Foot. ....And I want a combat chart to clearly show me what being a superior swordsman means I am good at killing, so I know who I should be trying to stuff them into when I do my movement. And I want to look at my opponents army and see instantly what he has got that can run me over, so I can keep my squishy bits away from his nasty stuff.
It may sound like an esoteric presentation issue, but I actually think its important to help people get an intuitive grasp of how to use troops, and what any given army will be like. And thats why its not just a list isse - the POA charts etc could/(should/must?) also be structured to reflect this (ie list Sup Swordsman, and then list everything a SS gets POAs against, then Sw and everything a Sw gets POAs, then likewise for all the main troop types), rather than organising it by the list of factors (all the +2's, then all the +1's, all the -1's etc) they seem to be at the moment
I think this is also reflected in how my first readthru saw lots of maneuver rules and no clear combat differentiators, so I imagined it as a set of rules where shuffling regulars around would be a massive advantage, and troops would be largely undifferentiated - having played, I dont think thats true as the CMT doesnt exclude much thats sensible at all, so moving is pretty easy - but Im still not sure whether anyone will have an answer to a handful of good quality legions!
AoW says it sets out to be a "troop function" rather than "troop equipment" set of rules - but there seems to be a lot of "equipment" (if you including drill) and not a lot of "functional" differentiation thats crept in, certainly at a descriptive level, maybe even at a functional level.
The next level beyond the presentation aspect drifts into a game design philosophy issue. If "who is good at doing what to whom" is the starting point for design (which it to be fair claims to be), its going to make (IMO) a game with depth. But the structure you have in the way the rules are presented at present might mean the finished product accidentally ends up not prioritising this ....?
!!) however without some sort of recognition for uncovered flanks in the impact phase and ZOI's preventing anyone wheeling into them there seems little advantage in charging with the whole line immediately when you have good impact troops ?