One of the things I'm becoming concerned about as I play the game and read the forum is what the end product is going to play like. It's my belief that the best works, work best because there is a strong vision behind them; informing every part of the design process. Ultimately I suppose, I think that the algorithm is just as good a way of expressing one's individual understanding of the world and communicating that to other people, as other things that lead to art!
Stay with me.
Personally, what exited me about UGG, was the fact that there was very little micromanagement. I'm old now and I just can't keep up with an opponent who can always win because they have 'super fast processing power' (I have lots of experience, but I express it slowly). I prefer a game that, if it's at a strategic level, is just that and gives me time to make decisions that I can trust my forces to carry out (more or less reliably). Conversely at a tactical level, I'd like to be able to make almost all of the decisions. I want to be either General or Lieutenant, but not both at the same time.
I guess what I'm saying is that I'd like the strategic elements of this game to be discrete from the tactical; if we're going to have a supply train, I really don't want to see it or have to deal with it on the battlefield. My worry about this process (the forum and debates), is that the pressure to please everyone might push the developers towards something that loses sight of the story they were originally trying to tell.
Of course I might be quite wrong about what I perceive this to have been, in which case...
I'll just go on enjoying myself ;-)