well it's not like it'd be impossible to combine tactical and strategic, you'd just need two tables, one where you moved around your big armies in a strategic sense, deployed supply lines, deployed new troops, set up counters for whatever etc. etc., and then you could have a table where you did the combats on, it'd probably be the best if the tactical landscape was one you could put together in different ways, depending on the square that was being fought on, so if you're on a small mountainous region, the tactical landscape will be a small one with alot of inaccesible squares, so you'd be forced into bottlenecking etc. etc. and it'd be easier to defend from large armies with a smaller army, if it's a large mountainous region it'd be easier to be overrun by a larger force. then you could have the same for plains and hills, with small-medium-large areas having different tactical-battleground landscapes, possibly use a system where you click together different pieces randomly so you get a new battleground each time. It'd be a large game though and turns would take a long time if you have say 4 skirmishes in one turn. Maybe have an option where both players could agree on not doing the tactical part, and then roll dice for it instead, to do small battles faster, and if one wanted tactical and the other wanted to do it fast, you could get the other players to judge or roll a flip a coin.