With one exception (see top of list below), I already think that the game plays very much like the board game. But since you asked, here's my list of items to make the game more EIA like:
1) Depot screening is a problem. Huge 100 factor armies are being bogged down by lines of depots or a couple of hundred undisciplined cossacks (at no political point cost!). Very, very unrealistic. As per the board game, corps should be able to bypass depots and cossacks. This is actually a significant bug in my opinion and really changes the feel of the game.
2) Standing orders for single corps battles give too much advantage to the attacker. Either a) Use existing standing order code only when there is a <5:1 ratio, otherwise run a file exchange battle, b) use trivial battles when 5:1, and standing orders otherwise. Drop file exchange battles for all siege battles as these are a waste of time.
3) Surrender conditions give too much option to loser to pick and choose amongst the winners, some modest changes here would be an improvement. See Gazfun's suggestion.
4) Currently enemy supply depots are lacking in strategic importance. We should allow capture and automatic conversion of depots after a field battle as per the board game (also needs a standing order for depot garrisons to destroy depot and retreat into city/surrender). This is very closely related to (1).
5) We are missing the overwhelming numbers rule that allows corps involved in trivial field battles to reinforce (trivial battles are those against depots, cossacks and maybe >5:1 ratio). Players are not using reinforcement enough, which added interest to the game. This is very closely related to (1).
6) a proportional losses option for the naval rules (or a classic scenario without light ships).
The following are missing, but not entirely necessary IMO:
1) Alternative dominant status (expand new in-game editor to allow morale changes?)
2) British training (expand new in-game editor to allow morale changes?)
3) Alternate kingdoms (I don't really miss this, but it would be good to be able to add provinces to Poland and the Ottoman)
4) Retreat into city option. Other than for depot garrisons retreats, I can not see how this could be done with useful input from the controlling player. If the player wants the corps in the city, he should place it there during his land or reinforcement phase. I don't think we need it.
Things we will shortly be able to do with the editor, or can already do:
1) A scenario without light ships (I can't stand light ships). We can use the existing scenario maker for this, but an official scenario would be great.
2) An option to fore the destruction of forces if they fail to leave 3 months after the end of a war (we can use the new in-game editor for this, and no new code is required here)
3) Manipulate manpower to allow for levee en mass in 1792 scenario (we can use the new in-game editor for this, and no new code is required here)
4) implement the faillure to leave rule with the in-game editor.
I should probably add that we should not get too excited here. There is a list of about 25 bugs to fix, which will take a couple of weeks, and the classic scenario, which will be a couple of months in development, then IP. I don't think some of the above are too hard to code, but would you rather delay the classic and get the relatively simple ones of these done? The relatively simple ones are likely the depot/cossack screening, proportional naval losses, surrender conditions, and maybe standing orders using trivial battles for 5:1.
< Message edited by Dancing Bear -- 2/13/2011 1:02:03 PM >