Well... not all of the power 19. I only have up to #8.

What is your game about?
Armies wage war against each other, and civilians get caught in the crossfire.

What do your characters do?
The players command both armies and communities of noncombatants. The soldiers may attempt to defeat or conquer their enemies or protect their civilians. The civilians may support the army through research, manufacturing, and so on, or they may simply try to stay out of the line of fire.

What do the players do?
The players send their armies to fight one another while trying to make sure their civilians don't die.

How does your setting support what your game is about?
I haven't quite figured out a setting yet. So far I know I want it to involve urban combat in a scifi or fantasy world (I wouldn't be comfortable making something like this set in the modernday real world.) I want the armies to be fairly near to each other's bases so that they can readily lay siege on each other and I want noncombatants to be close to the action so that they add complications.
I'm thinking that the game will take place inside of a city in a state of civil war.
Several factions aim to take control one block at a time. Hopefull this sort of setting will help reinforce a game of small-scale, skirmish-based landgrab.

How does character creation reinforce what the game is about?
In addition to building your army from a point pool, you also have to put together a civilian community. The civilians serve as a resource in the game, providing supplies and morale and so on.

What types of behaviors does your game reward?
It depends on the army you choose. Different factions have different attitudes toward civilians.
One army places the lives of civilians above all, protecting their own, but also trying not to harm any innocents at all even in enemy territory.
Another army cares only for their own civilians and has no problem killing civilians that help their enemies.
Another army may deliberately attempt to kill the opponent's civilians.
One army may simply have no regard for the lives of any civilians, using their own as human shields.
What all armies share is their desire to expand out and conquer territory.

How are the responsibilities of narration and credibility divided in your game?
There are many sides to every story.
Whenever things happen in game, the players will take turns narrating the event from their characters perspectives.

So, the idea is a little nebulous right now. Any suggestions?

...One idea I just had was to do more of a pulpy, super-hero theme for the setting.
Possible Factions:
Legion of Superheros
Legion of Supervillains
Zombies
Alien Invaders

I think the mood of this setting should be gritty, but not quite as over-the-top GRIMDARK as WARHAMS.

Is the line between combatant and non-combatant always clear?  I really like the idea that players don't know whether a given unit is military or civilian, and that some units function in both modes.  A resistance fighter who returns home could flip back into civilian mode, and then be rounded up by the secret police and executed.  Or maybe it was an innocent civilian who was executed, and now all of the other civilians who lived in that region of the map are more likely to join the revolution/insurgency.

I want to evolve your ideas in a direction you might not have thought about.  Instead of two armies, and two groups of civilians, you could have a side of monsters and monstrous "support" units.  For example, lets say you choose Zombies and in your particular lore, Zombies are like ants that harvest bodies, and those bodies need to incubate and mutate before they're born as zombies. Your military is zombies, and your civilians are incubating zombies.  Likewise, you could have alien motherships, or queen/breeders, etc. 

I really do enjoy this dynamic of adding in an "Arms race" complete with civilian casualties, to a game.  Have you thought about incorporating espionage?  Like, you could have spy units that steal research?  Another thing is, have you thought about taking all of your ideas and placing them in a crazy mashup?  You could have illuminati, super heroes/villians and monster invaders.  If pulled off right, it could be neat (See Heroscape.)

Instead of a "wargame", have you thought about a board game?  It might just be me, but a board game like Twilight Imperium seems far more marketable than a war game like Warham or Warmachine.  A company I live near, Fantasy Flight, makes many board games and they might possibly do your game, allowing you to not worry about things like Miniatures manufacturing.  This is, of course, you plan on trying to take this to market.

Given my setting, I think the line between combatant and noncombatant should be very blurry.
Espionoge would be a good twist and it would really open up design space for factions.

I hadn't thought of a board game. A friend of mine is a sculptor and is starting up his own business making plastic miniatures. As his business partner, one of my tasks is to design the actual game. A board game could be cool if it has expansions and whatnot, because I don't think all the factions and things I want to include in the game are going to fit in one box.

OK, so I think I have a more refined idea for my setting. Tell me what you think.

With the outbreak of World War III, a race of extraterrestrials, who have been watching us humans for a while, decide that it is time for an intervention. In order to save humankind, the aliens invade earth. They topple the worlds governments, replacing them with their own regimes, and attempt to unite all humans under their rule.
However, these aliens inadvertantly bring viruses with them, mutating some of earth's population. Some people gain super-powers from the alien viruses while many are simply turned into zombies.

The alien invasion throws the earth into chaos. Rival factions spring up to take back control of the earth. These factions include legions of super-heroes and super-villains, as well as groups of regular folk who oppose all of these inhuman freaks.

And are the aliens looking for some kind of oil or such on earth...sorry, couldn't resist! :)

Heh.
Actually, I think it would be a nice touch if the aliens had some kind of ulterior motive that involves the extraction of precious resource.

OK, I want to have spies in the game and civilians that turn out to be combatants. I think it would also be cool to have android infiltrators and people who look healthy but actually turn out to be infected with the zombie virus.
Come to think of it, it would also be neat if super-heroes and villains can have secret identities, appearing in the form of civilians until you choose to activate them.
I think it adds an interesting dynamic; you might want to avoid hitting noncombatants, but it is difficult to tell the difference between the combatants and the noncombatants.

I'm thinking of possibly iusing some kind of shell-game mechanic for this game. Any suggestions?

When you say wargame...do you mean a game set against the backdrop of war, or a strategic battlegame (the type normally played with miniatures)??

Just asking.

I've got some ideas but I'd like to clarify first.

V

Vulpinoid:
The latter (strategic battlegame, with miniatures)

Which era would you want to set it in? Civilian participation in war changes drastically. Pre-WW II, most of the civilian population was somewhat safely behind the frontlines. And what about partisans/guerillas?

It depends on the army you choose. Different factions have different attitudes toward civilians.
One army places the lives of civilians above all, protecting their own, but also trying not to harm any innocents at all even in enemy territory.
Another army cares only for their own civilians and has no problem killing civilians that help their enemies.
Another army may deliberately attempt to kill the opponent's civilians.
One army may simply have no regard for the lives of any civilians, using their own as human shields.

Susan: I'm thinking of setting the game in the near future.

Callan:
Yes, I'm thinking that the players should have options regarding attitudes toward civilians, and that these options will each have their own roughly equivalent advantages and disadvantages.
For example, if you are playing as the alien invaders, you may choose to exterminate all humans (a very easy option to play, given their advanced weapon technology) or you may choose to assimilate conquered humans into your collective hivemind (more difficult, but it has benefits.)

Generally, killing civilians is the easy, hassle-free option if you are willing to pay the price later. Keeping civilians alive is much more costly and difficult, but it can pay off big in the end.
This idea is very much at the core of my idea for this game.

Some armies though would have very limited options regarding civilians. Zombies, for example, pretty much just want to kill everything so they can turn it into a zombie. Perhaps though, you might spend a few points of some sort to give your zombies some memories of their past lives. If you do, they may protect the people they knew in life and get various benefits such as the ability to use firearms and other technology to a limited degree.

One idea I've been seriously considering is that players should be able to activate civilians as combatants for a cost. In most cases this cost is moral points (haven't fleshed this idea much, yet.)
Ideas off the top of my head:
Super Villains can easily activate their henchmen as combatants for very little cost. Zombies can be activated as combatants for no cost at all. The Alien Invaders lose a piece of their hive mind whenever a civilian is converted into a combatant. The Resistance can convert civilians into guerrilla combatants for no moral cost if their moral is already at zero. The Super Heros allow for one or two civilians to 'spark' and gain super powers, but they pay a heavy cost if the people they are trying to protect join their fight.

I do have an idea of what armies I want to have in the game:
Super Heroes
Super Villains
Alien Invaders
Zombies
Sewer Mutants
The Resistance

Yeah, I was just wondering if the feel of it was something like spiritual attributes from 'the riddle of steel' rpg. In that you got a fairly large reward, the same reward, whether you were into killing peasants or saving them. Further, you got it even if you just tried, not just if you suceeded. Of course other smaller resources latter might making saving them more attractive, but in the short term killing or saving were equal choices for the player, thus granting him the ability to express his character exactly as he desired. I was wondering if you had it in mind that players express their armies attitude - perhaps not through the whole game, but just as a side, fun bit amidst the whole wargame play?

Ah, I see what you're asking...

Ultimately, each army has the following goals:
Destroy your enemies.
Conquer your enemies territory.
Keep certain noncombatants, or a certain number of noncombatants (variable depending on army) alive.

If you succeed in these goals, you win the game regardless of how many noncombatants you killed. However, your attitude toward noncombatants has mechanical effects on the game that can affect the outcome.

I'm hoping that attitudes toward noncombatants won't be a side bit of fun, but something much more central to the game play.

Hmmm... I feel theres a lot of tangled knots in my thinking here. Win conditions in particular are something I really have to flesh out right now. That's why I'm getting feedback from you guys. :)