>
> You do have a point. The cards are nice for seeing what units move
> where and where hills are, etc. (like miniatures) but why not just make
> a table for the results? Its not like it is that hard. If I felt like
> it (which I may) I could make a nice chart up on Excel that would do the
> same as the battle result cards but with dice.
>
That wouldn't solve my problem with the battle cards which is:
1) the generally boring uniformity of the units (I have a mass army of
Pikemen and Archers now because basically that's all that is available to
me and effective against my opponent's force. But it is utterly boring to
me, and the very *opposite* of how I prefer to conduct warfare, because the
pike are SO SLOW).
2) the utter predictability of the results (especially if large numbers of
units are involved), and conversely
3) the utter randomness of the results (tactics/generalship plays, IMO,
only a limited role, mainly because of the restricted nature of the
battlefield).

IMO, keeping the system the same and only exchanging dice for the cards
themselves isn't really much of an improvement. So we use dice. We could
settle the results in a nice game of Quarters, too (which would have some
nice side benifits of the U.S. Grant variety).
I want the battlefield system to be more flexable, and in effect, more
complex.