And I'm trying a different approach. In the past I've tried to write them for an "audience" of people I've never met . . . which means explaining everything (and why I've done it that way) as if the reader knew nothing about the period.
All well and good . . . but I would get exceedingly long-winded.
Really, all I need in order to game them for myself and people I'm gaming with is a few charts and a few odds and ends. I really don't need all of the explanatory "extras". . . especially since I'll either be playing solo or be there to explain anything that needs explaining.
One significant change I'm making has been influenced by my recent solo games of "Victory Without Quarter". Not knowing what unit was "next up" provided interesting tension in solo play.
But VWQ was designed for smaller forces than I plan to play with. So, rather than having cards for individual units, I will only have "activation cards" for the C-in-C and Brigadiers.
This move to an "activation deck" has necessitated a few changes to Generals and Brigadiers. Their "Personality" ratings (i.e., "Aggressive", "Steady", "Careful" and "Political") remain the same.
However their "Initiative" rating has been changed (they are now usually 2 or 3). It indicates how many cards that officer will have in the deck. This does NOT guarantee that a high initiative officer will have his card turned more often since "Turn Over" cards might well stymie this . . . but it should affect what task the C-in-C assigns them.
Also, their "Inertia" ratings will now be generated randomly instead of being tied to their Personalities. "Command Radii" will also be random (although a bit different than before).
Finally I was able to do some actual figure painting earlier today. Until now I'll only been priming figures . . . but today I painted the flesh on 110 18th century figures. Not a huge step, I grant you; but a definite start.