To continue to fall even more off-topic:
I agree very strongly that poorly implemented 3D, as found in a lot of strategy titles, often kills the game. Very functional 2D can have a similar effect, showing that aesthetics are pretty much ignored too. Good art direction is also critical (for example,
A Valley Without Wind apparently uses professional sprite artists, but the programmers seem to be the ones who put it all together in the game
). A possible problem to be faced with UoC's design is that, being 2D and
apparently simplistic, it did appear, to someone I showed it to, as "just like a free flash game", which people are used to not paying for. The irony is that I think they'd take it more seriously as a wargame if it was done badly in 3D or 2D with a terrible UI! Hopefully that is not a common reaction though
I do outsource my game music, since I really couldn't even get started with that myself, but I think I'd rather keep making my own art, albeit rather simplisticly (I am in the highly stylised, pixelated camp). My problem is not so much art quality, which is, I hope, adequate for purpose, but the fact that it takes me a good while to draw sprites and a phenomenal amount of time to animate even simple stuff. As you say, art or code require completely different heads to be worn and continually switching tasks can be very detrimental to getting either actually done.
Also, what artists call "code", coders call HTML:D