All,
After reviewing the Where's the Wargaming Rules Innovation thread below, I wanted to add my own two cents without deliberately 'high-jacking the thread', until after it has run its course. ;^)
Personally, I think half the problem with the apparent lack of wargame innovation is a result of the limited 'wargame designer gene pool', that innovation can draw upon. This is No indictment of anyone here, just noting that our small population (numbers), will limit innovations.
Notwithstanding, wargame design innovation is occurring, its just not at the rate and order of magnitude, that will always get your attention. Most of this I believe is related to how innovation occurs. Whether it is Revolutionary or Evolutionary, will make a big difference on whether or not it shows up on your own radar.
In respects to Wargame Design, the concept of "Revolutionary" is very distinct from "Evolutionary."
The Revolutionist designer is more radical, and innovations are more discontinuous or nonlinear (i.e. he invokes novelty). Revolutionary thinkers may take customer feedback into consideration, but ultimately they aim to deliver results that consumers have not yet considered.
By comparison, the wargame Evolutionist is prepared to think of continuous improvements inside a linear framework (i.e. he evolves paradigms). If you make evolutionary change, you probably do so based on an existing infrastructure, most likely from the feedback produced by prior iterations of whatever you decide to improve.
To make an analogy, picture two (2) wargame designers standing halfway up a hill. The Evolutionary designer ponders about which way is best to reach the top of the existing hill. The Revolutionary designer imagines how to scale a yet-undiscovered taller hill.
Even so, you can make an argument that the gradual and necessary innovations on top of these new ideas are just as important as creating them.
In any case, I offer this up as Food for thought.
tackles a 
