I haven't given up on the Latin American Wars of Independence project. If I could do a bigger map - all the Americas - it could have scenarios for everything from 1492 to 1850.
The maps are truly challenging. I fiddle around with mine from time to time and spent weeks and weeks going back over stuff I'd done and realizing that I had left spaces between provinces Drives you nuts!
Brilliant! I thought everyone had forgotten about these wars, but I'm glad to see you have not. Honestly I would love to play as Bolivar and drive the Spaniards out of America. Any chance on a Mexican Revolution game? (the one in 1910). I mentioned this earlier, along with the Chinese Civil War, but there seems to be low interest in both; I'm suprised that few people are interested because I imagine they would both be very similar to RUS, and RUS is a very popular game. Perhaps neither war is as Romanticized as the Russian Revolution, though I can't imagine why.
I think that the engine generates the best (most plausible) outcomes for warfare of the period from ca. 1500 - 1900 - which happens to be a blind spot of the mainstream game industry (esp. 16th and 17th cent. - I'm already a bit over-napoleonicked). There are lots of interesting scenarios for the 16th and 17th centuries. Huguenot wars, Habsburg versus Ottoman Empire, Hungarian "revolts", thirty years wars, etc. etc.
). There’s a lack of information in between. The process of the turn, where the engine does its magic, can only be deciphered by experts (AGEOD-exegetes 
) with big efforts. I've tried my best to analyze battle logs (I've summarized my insights in the RoP forum), and now Narwhal is doing a great job at writing tutorials. Granted, to some extent learning to understand the game is fun and rewarding for itself (which is a big compliment for the games!), but it might be a bit too hard right now. The battles themselves are especially affected by the lack of information. Ideally, we would have a graphical/visual representation, where we could see the complete process of the battle: we could get information which elements take part, how the frontage is calculated, etc. etc. Given the huge amounts of data processing in a big battle, we wouldn't have to see any dice-roll by an element, but an overview of the hit chance (plus the factors for it), and a statistic how often an element has hit/missed would be nice. So any kind of improved feedback for the user would be highly appreciated - it would even help to give the battlelog a language that is easier to understand and give players a button in the battle report to show the battlelog. The same goes for supply - aren't you getting tired of the supply-question-threads that come to life in any single game-forum? 
I think that this is a much more important goal than the implemention of "additions" to the core game. I would actually prefer to keep the whole game focused on the military aspect. Personally, I'm rather annoyed when I have to make some political decisions or when I'm supposed to give bread and games to roman citizens. I'd keep it focused on the core, polish it and improve the feedback that players can get. You've already started to move in that direction with the detailed battle report, but I feel that there's still more room for improvement, especially as this issue is very important when it comes to attracting "newbies" (those who have not mastered the art of AGEOD-exegesis yet).
