<---Insert New Idea---> I don't know if this had been suggested already, but I didn't see it when I skimmed through a couple pages of this thread. I was thinking about a map-based campaign, where the player is allowed to make a lot more decisions in the campaign (is non-linear a good word for it?). For instance, a large map with Carthage on one side and Rome on the other. You are Hannibal, and you need to get to Rome. Now, this large map wouldn't be playable - it would be divided into smaller, playable "tiles". You would start in control of the Carthage tile, and click on an adjacent tile to start a game there. If you win that game, you get that tile on the large map, and you move on to another tile (your choice). I imagine you could include quite a few minor tribes in between Carthage and Rome. The free style of the campaign could allow resource/troop transfers from one tile to another, and/or the loss of Carthaginian support while Hannibal is in Rome. Resources would be measured by tile, but you could also see on the large map how much of each resource total you have. I don't know if any of you have ever played Stronghold, but it has a campaign somewhat like that, except that you can't choose which tile you are going to next, so it is still a linear campaign. A better comparison might be Risk, except that you fight the battles for the territories. I like (or would like, I guess) this style of campaign because it allows much broader decisions to be made - go through Spain to Rome, or by boat? Spend lots of time in Carthage, garnering support (troops and supplies) or hope you can forage on the way? I'm not completely familiar with Hannibal's conquest of Rome, but I'm sure there were other direction he could have gone besides across the Alps.