Hi OldReliable1862,
Trying to sell something to someone not knowing their requirements is a mug's game, but I will address your request on the basis of "features of ADF that might be of interest".
1) The game turn sequence of ADF. While computer war simulations have the option of advancing time either by discrete time steps (even if these are notional and/or variable duration) or by a sequence of events, table top miniatures are primarily discrete time steps. I can't think of any table top rules set that's purely event-based. Although some rules have a sequence of unit activation within a turn these aren't pure event-based as these "unit activation events' sit within the context of a turn.
The next major categorization is whether turns are simultaneous or I-Go-U-Go.
ADF uses I-Go-U-Go whereas previous JR rules were simultaneous. Within an active players turn each unit has two actions it can perform in any order (i.e., it could move twice, fire twice, move and fire, fire and move, fire and charge, move and charge, etc.); although some actions like charging can be done only once.
The passive player is allowed to react depending on whether or not an opposing player's unit (or unit group) moves a minimal amount or fires within line-of-sight or does something within a short distance of a reacting unit. Reactions are things like defensive fire, formation changes, rallying, counter-charging, etc. However, other than a "desperation fire" when charged each passive player's unit may react only once during the active player's turn.
The result of this is a lot of complexity with interactions. Do you withhold defensive fire in case the active player does something more dangerous later on. As an active player how should you sequence the activation of units and what actions should they take in what order. Mastering this will take a few games but some might find the complexity intriguing. So, it's still a time-stepped, I-Go-U-Go turn sequence but with enough ability to rearrange actions or interrupt an enemy's actions that it incorporates a little bit of "event-based" simulation. The down side is a turn can take a long time as it progresses through unit/unit group activations and enemy reactions.
One thing I've realized with ADF is to be careful with table top terrain. Most table top games probably allow units to have too much line-of-sight since slight dips, small bits of terrain, etc. that block line-of-sight are missing. Bringing units up under cover is a big thing in ADF. If your table doesn't have enough terrain units will be blown apart by deployed enemy batteries before as they deploy.
2) Activation isn't random. Random activation can be purely random (i.e., a unit has fixed probability of activation) or a player may have an ability to increase a unit's probability of activation through command effort. In ADF activation is automatic. Some prefer this but some prefer the random activation.
3) ADF allows players to move individual regiments or batteries but a player will be more successful to think in terms of brigades or artillery battalions. Typically in a game where a unit is an infantry brigade there's no depiction of individual regiments. ADF is intended for those players who want to play a "brigade unit" game but still see how an individual unit (e.g., 20th Maine on Little Round Top) does. This means more complexity with ADF with the additional risk of a player getting into trouble by micro-managing individual regiments.
4) ADF can be and has been adapted to the JR regimental scale (by JR players who like the ADF game mechanics). So, if one wants to play a game where units are regiments instead of brigades it works quite well.
5) Basing ADF counts figures and in the rules illustrates things using the JR basing system. The author says the rules are basing agnostic but does confuse the reader enough to think they aren't. The answer is, "it depends", which I think is true for all rules. They key is whether your army basing is compatible with that used by opponents. My figures are based on JR but I don't feel that this prevents me from playing F&F, Pickett's Charge, etc., but I play solo games so I never have a compatibility problem.
Conversely, I'd be happy to use other basing systems with JR or ADF, but with the provision that I'm not trying to represent precisely a given unit's strength for a given battle. For example, if your army's figures are based 4-to-a-base then your regiments in ADF would be 240, 480 or 720 for 1-3 of your bases (i.e., each base would be 4 X 60 = 240 troops). You'd also have to convert the tables to account for the basing as ADF uses number of bases lost for modifiers (i.e., instead of 1 of 2 bases lost would be 50% lost).
6) ADF's combat resolution system is similar to the JR rules mechanisms. So if you familiar with the JR mechanics you'll find it fairly easy to adapt to ADF.
7) ADF counts figures for combat power and attrition. That is what it is like it or not.
So, there are some features of ADF which may be of interest to a player. My approach to rules are like ice cream flavours. I like to try different flavours but there are some I avoid. With respect to ADF, I like the interesting game turn sequence varied unit actions and reactions plus I-Go-U-Go works well for solo play but it's not my go to for a quick fun game. My issue is more that I play games from the times of ancient Babylon to WWII, so I haven't played ACW in a while.
Still, when it comes to game rules it's horses for courses.
prepares to do some regimental-level ACW gaming.
