This is not really an attempt to reply to the question asked by Roger ("Why Strategic Conquest?"), but a distantly related observation:

My ten year old nephew spent the better part of the weekend monopolizing time on my Mac, playing various games (I can't resist "asiding" that HE is responsible for the late shipment of my contribution this issue. Does anybody buy this?). With some trepidation, I started a level 6 game for him, and played the first 50 days or so as a teaching exercise. After he was comfortable with the game I left him alone with it - and he won!

I think "simplicity" is a key to the success of Strategic Conquest. Does anyone else remember those horrendously complicated Avalon Hill wargames I used to play as a teenager? I would spend more time figuring out what was legal and possible that I would working on strategy. Ugh!