It's one of the best RPGs of 2003, so why hasn't anyone played it?!

[A Black Falcon]

I said

Equipping items? Levelling up?

How about saying what you mean, DJ. What you mean is that you like Strategy-RPGs more than strategy games. That is what you mean. Because there aren't many pure strategy games with inventories, that's for sure! And especially in the strategy/war style genre like AW... but really, you need to be specific here. The elements you propose adding seem to be in the realm of added complexity that gives you more busy work, but the amount of actual strategy added is debatable.

Honestly, the very idea that adding all that complexity makes games far deeper strategically doesn't make complete sense. Yes, when you add complexity (like FFTA does) you add more things to do...

Now... on the PC front we can look at some nice examples in this arguement. (to get away from AW vs FFTA or FE) How about, oh, Warcraft II and Starcraft vs. Warcraft III? WC3 incorporates items, levelling up, an even more cinematic story than before, heroes, supply, etc... adding a lot of complexity to elements of the game. However, to make the load managable, they reduced other elements of the game like base-building, resource management, the effectiveness of defences... my point is something has to go. In the case of adding RPG elements what usually goes is the hard core of strategy. There is a reason some people prefer SC to WC3 strategically... they like SC's hard facts, compared to the randomness added in War3 with things like creeps, items, damage ranges (3-5 in wc3 instead of 4 like in sc damage), etc... FFTA does the same thing when compared to other tactical-strategy games. It adds complexity but generally cuts somewhat on the hardcore strategy base... do you understand what I mean by that? The 'pure strategic' part of a strategy game that is the centerpoint of everything that happens.

In a game like AW that IS the game. It is like a game of chess -- strategy at its most basic, simple yet infinitely complex. Civilization, I'd say, works like a super-scaled version of this (with a much broader focus). It's just a very different approach from one where you focus on more RPGish elements that inevitably bring in randomness to the equasion... randomness and complexity that really isn't needed and just confuses the gamers if the strategic depth is left the same (which necessitates either confusing the players or cutting on the strategy).

My point really is that you seem to think that adding those things would be an improvement to the game. By the standards of how AW is designed, in fact, adding random elements and unnecessary complexity like that would probably be seen as a failure.

I don't know how FE handles this, of course, since I haven't played it...

. :)