I don't have RUS yet -- was about to get it but then saw Espana 1936 and that a RUS Gold is on the way, so I picked up Espana 1936 instead.
But I will gladly provide any feedback on RUS Gold when it is time (whether beta or after release) with the perspective of what I think is working well in Espana 1936.
The biggest thing I'd say at the moment is that Espana 1936 tutorials take nothing for granted, including trivial things, like reminding you a few times to move the tutorial window out of the way to get to the game (I nearly went insane with one tutorial -- I forget which game -- where what it asked me to do looked impossible because it was under the tutorial window and therefore not clickable).
A couple of small, general things:
Spelling, grammar and punctuation counts. Make sure there is a final proof-read of the whole set of tutorials once done.
Make sure all references to objects and interface elements are crystal-clear. Too many times, as a newb, I've read, "click on the stack" or "drag it to territory X" without the faintest clue as to which stack or how I'm going to find the territory (out of hundreds) to drag to. Simply always refer to the explicit element by name and more importantly, location, with directions if necessary ("northeast"), to make sure there's not a moment of frustration in following orders. When I'm told "it's over there" with ambiguous reference, I feel like I'm dealing with my wife's answer when I ask where the backup toilet paper is: "in the closet." [which one? which shelf? OH! it's in the back of the closet we never use, buried under thirty other things!]
It remains quite ambiguous for a newb to understand exactly what you click on to Select a City, as an example. The little brown square? The label? The graphic of the city itself? Identifying the right clickspot is HUGE for all things where it is not obvious to a new player. Again, blindingly idiotic for anyone familiar with the system but a real barrier of entry to new players. This is particularly frustrating in a game that so wonderfully identifies virtually everything with thorough, detailed tooltips, it makes the player feel like an idiot for not being able to figure it out (yes, I'm an idiot, it's okay).
Example of rare Espana 1936 tutorial fail: I've been taught how to create a Division, using the Division Special Orders button. Then I move to how to create an Army. I'm still thinking, and the tutorial implies, it's just like creating a Division. The tutorial steps me thru why I select the three-star general to head the Army (with an excursion into why seniority matters, which wasn't relevant to the main topic but should be a separate note or hint....), and then it fails to tell me explicitly to select the Form Army Special Orders button. So I click on the Form Division button, and the next step in the tutorial, with the Army Outliner to the upper right on the screen, doesn't happen. It must be broken! No, it's just I wasn't referred to the Form Army button, simple as that. The nth time through the tutorial I finally figured that out.....
This may sound like too much hand-holding, but I think it's absolutely critical for games as complex as AGEOD, and may make the difference between sales and no sales: make very clear to the player what the typical sequence of activities is for a cycle of a turn. Break it down into very clear categories. First I check the ledger, then I scroll thru all my active units using the Next Stack arrows, making choices for all of them, then I go to Production, then Diplomacy, etc. etc. (this isn't my recommended sequence, just an example). While it's quite true that different players will choose different sequences, and the games are designed well enough that there doesn't have to be a hard-and-fast stepping through a linear this-then-that process, and that not all the steps will be used every time, it will help a new player massively to have an excellent example in a tutorial of what the typical logic is. Yes, this is inherent in the overall flow of the interface design. Yes, it can be implied by the sequence of Tutorials 1-2-3-etc. But it should be made absolutely explicit. This will give new players a feeling of competence like nothing else, and it's that feeling that excites and expands an audience for your game.
The tutorials are at their best when they don't try to pack too much into one window at a time; all too often, I am asked to think about too many things at once (I admit I am a simple yet patient mind). Chunk information into bite-size pieces, better more, shorter tutorials than ones with endless things to do per step. Don't start telling me how the save system works on the same page you're telling me about the production system -- it distracts me, leaves me suddenly not thinking about the production system, wondering why the save system is NOW being mentioned rather than elsewhere, and then I forget everything and go have a beer and blame the game for not making any sense. Different topic, different page, or tutorial.
Tutorials are _extremely_ difficult to do well; how much focus to give to what to provide consistent pedagogy is a very difficult balancing act. And making the steps logical is also hard. I have no problem going through a tutorial a few times, to practice the concepts presented. It is better when those concepts are clearly defined per tutorial, and per step -- each one is a clear theme, in other words.
There's a tendency with complex wargames to assume the player is smart, and will "figure it out." While this is true, creating unnecessary barriers to entry for such a small audience is never going to be a good thing. If walking the player through everything carefully via tutorials feels like it will be "giving away the game too much," well then that's an implication there needs to be more thought to the game itself, fortunately not at all an issue for any AGEOD game I've ever encountered.
Well, that's all I'll say for now.