Ill start by saying that for me, Id like to see not a game, but a simulation of high-level command with multiple depths. It would begin not with counters and top-down map, but a map like this, that simulates a high command war room. Imagine the game screens below showing the entire world (notice how the graphics don't need to be photo-real):Zoom in for miniatures or NATO symbols and now we have an operational level:There would be mini-games or mini-sims, such as where Art Treasures could be looted. Modders could add art works of art -a simple mod that could allow players to make the game their very own - something that increases playability and ownership, a feature that is often discounted and expands a game's depth at no cost. Whats this got to do with a military game? It's an example of great immersion. How about sending a commando squad to retrieve a national treasure?Want to build a massive navy? Most games you can but what about Treaty regulations or congress saying you cant and every cent must be politically justified? (most strategy games are actually in 'god mode' by default - you can do anything without restraint.) How about inter-branch rivalry? Your Generals vying individually for supplies or the latest upgrades. The game would combine wargaming with management and personal sims. Football Manager for WW2 High Command? Yes. Hell yes. Can you imagine the interface? I can.How about a game system based on established statistical analysis of actual World War 2 data? Its all out there. The effectiveness of the Soviet Army in winter. The hit probabilities of Heavy Bombers in 1944.An Air Operations room with a giant board where animated staff pushed markers across a giant map. A naval operations room where the map was an actual naval map.Game screens where you walked about the high command to visit different rooms with different game functions (like Silent Hunter or early Medal of Honour). Where you could change the location of your high command (and décor) (Wolfs Lair anyone? The bunkers beneath Downing Street?). How about a staff room where there was a card table (mini card games anyone?) and a wall of pinups (collect or mod them all).If games like GTA 4 & 5 and Arma 3 can be made then so can games like this. Heck, if you take Master of Orion 3 and multiply the feature level of that game to what can be achieved currently, you'll see it's more that just possible, there's a new horizon of strategy gaming out there that no one has touched upon yet. It has less to do with programming and everything to do with imagination and vision.Here's something for developers/programmers to ponder:Thousands of in-game units making to-hit rolls etc. and the CPU requirements involved can be reduced by combining old-school tabletop gaming with modern computing: have the computer use an odds-results table (like tabletop games, but to a level that it could be quite deep -see the CRT below) modified by factors (supply, training etc.).For a start, this would solve problems like 'when should my AI opponent retreat?' - they would retreat because the results table would say so. Problem solved.'When should AI units attack'. When the odds the AI calculates is favourable (classically 3:1 etc.), or, your leader/ideology dictates more suicidal odds / heavy attrition.You don't need to actually model a micro-level of detail (CPU intensive) to achieve a perceived level of detail.If WW2 statistics says X can be achieved by forces against Y in situation Z then that's all you need for a satisfying gaming experience. The detail is in how this feeds back to the player. An authentic-looking battle report would do this. Immersion and plausibility are the keys.I'm betting that every classic and/or successful game has high immersion, plausible gameplay results, great player feedback and high perceived level of gameplay detail; and none of that relies on graphical quality or CPU load.GDW's Third World War series Combat Results Table (CRT)