I have just recently started getting into Ageod games but I have thoroughly enjoyed them so far, to the point that I bought WIA, RoP RUS, EAW, NC, and E1936 in the span of 2 months. They are the only computer wargames I've bought that I did not feel my money would have been better spent on boardgames. However, there are just so many things missing or poorly optimized mechanics that hold each of the games back from being truly great to me.
Please Please go out and do more research on other Napoleonic game systems (note: board). There are just so many essential mechanics to simulating operational warfare (in this case Napoleonic) that have been long developed in board wargaming sorely missing from the Ageod system. My constant frustration with the lack of innovation in computer wargaming vs board wargaming has lead to believe that most designers/programmers either stopped playing boardgames after the 80s or just don't know how much the industry has seen a renaissance with the rise of the internet. Though finding out some of the lead people at Ageod have worked on boardgames is reassuring. (though I still haven't played Le Grande Guerre) But please, play/study Kevin Zucker's Campaigns of Napoleon series, Didier Rouy's Le Vol de l'Aigle, Brien Miller's Eagles of the Empire series,and MMP/The Gamers' Napoleonic Brigade Series.
With that in mind, some specific things I believe could make this new Napoleonic game truly great:
Being able to issue movement orders to be executed partway through the turn execution as well as the potential for the delivery of orders to be intercepted, delayed, misunderstood, etc. (beyond the just plain ridiculous max activation penalty where commanders just refuse to follow orders at all) The synchronized movement system is very clunky and in many cases prevents anything close to the historical maneuvers of the Corps (see: Ulm in the NB Austerlitz scenario).
Focus more on Napoleon's CAMPAIGNS:
Unless you are going to create a comprehensive political/diplomacy system that can adequately simulate the background of each and every War of the ___ Coalition with the motivations and goals of all the parties involved....don't do a grand campaign. Make an operational game, treat each campaign as their own individuals games with time, map and unit scales appropriate to each. (Sorry but having Jena-Auerstedt and 1813 at the same scale is just plain wrong) I really do admire that Ageod doesn't jam undue tactical considerations into an operational game (though the battle deployments in EAW where a step backward, albeit optional), so please go with smaller time scales so maneuver actually means something. I would vastly prefer a 100+ turn Poland Campaign scenario at 1-3 days to a "grand campaign". Oh, and please include the Italian campaigns this time!
A MUCH SMALLER MAP SCALE:
Individual maps for each campaigns with far more attention payed to roads and bridges and the nature of marching in column. Ideally, these would be open maps with free plotted movement (a la Le Vol de l'Aigle) or at the least a far more granular grid. Realistically though it will likely continue using movement areas, which I highly suggest playing Eagles of the Empire to see how the size and shape of regions correlates to the terrain. (i.e. more difficult terrain = smaller areas which more restrict density and deployment) MUCH more attention payed to the effects of corps level maneuver during battles. (make there a reason to fear being outflanked)
The Ageod supply system manages to somehow be both overabstracted AND inscrutable, however this is maybe the area where computer games potentially have the most advantage. I applaud Ageod for not following the example of nearly every other computer game and most boardgames by not settling for a simplistic trace supply system. Without some level of direct player input in their logistics system, there is little to no sense of operational tempo. The cohesion system is fantastic in this regard, but there is not nearly enough of a sense of supply lines . Supply trains need to be TRAINS and actually flow along roads rather than teleport depot to depot. If this flow was displayed visually along roads with the ability for the player to allocate the planned distribution on a high level scale (certain percentages along each route perhaps) it would be far more intuitive than the current mixture of a nebulous network of teleporting depots and tedious pick-up-and-deliver as well as providing a much more suitable model of logistical networks that could allow for much more detailed modelling of interdiction/raiding.
Command & Control:
The new activation rule in EAW is a promising idea, though it fails in execution. Activation should not be either yes/no or percentile movement reductions, give an estimated march time but have the actual speed always have some degree of uncertainty during turn resolution. Give more attention to distance and communications to show the initiative of the Marshalls operating independently as well as why the arrival of Napoleon & HQ made such a difference on the battlefield. (and no that doesn't mean more silly medical and communications units) This also requires a smaller map scale, but have the actions of Corps deviate further from planned the farther away from Army HQ they are, while having the potential for commanders to take effective action by initiative proportional to their command ratings.
Please no more nightmarish eyeless Prussians or blank faces. Either find an actual portrait (preferably with minimal cartoon effects added) or just have something generic like the appropriate rank insignia. And use more flattering portraits of Napoleon, he wasn't balding and pudgy his whole life! Giving the maps a look inspired by period campaign maps (i.e. drawn on paper) would also be greatly appreciated.
Those are just a few of the essentials off the top of my head, and I don't really know how feasible it all is. However, I have very much enjoyed Ageod's games so far and can only hope they are able to live up to the potential I see in the system someday.