i'd say two years tops.
anyway, here's what the man himself said about it:
"Thanks everyone for the input. However, I think I already told everyone that there are three things we won't do - 1) WWII game, 2) modern jet game, and 3) helo game.
Again, don't take it personally if you wanted one of those, its not that we don't want to do those, its just that we can't afford to do those in any competitive manner (since there are so much competition on those three areas). If we were to win lottery tomorrow and have $10 mil we have to lose, then sure, we'll jump at the opportunity to do one , but otherwise, we believe there are still plenty of grounds to cover in 60-80 era (and neighboring 50s and 90s) we're covering
And we're not doing strategic-level Cold War game anytime soon either, the focus of the series will remain tactical.
As for "expand his workforce so he can crank out more games/expansions in less time", er, we've done what, 8 titles the past 6 years? Thats more than 1 per year. Our current schedule is about 10 months per each release, and I think thats already very short as is... considering that back in last days of microprose (ie, 90s), they were spending 7+ years on a single game The only way we can cut time futher and release more often is if we elimiated beta testing (we schedule about 1 month) and post-release patch support (about 3 months, including time to do patches to all previous titles) - cutting those could possibly bring it down to 6 months cycle, but thats not what we want to do... and besides, I don't know how many people would actually spend $60 on our games per year, its difficult enough getting just $30 per year."