Q1.
I originally didn't think 18 cards was enough for a good strategy game. To be honest I've only partly changed my mind on that now!
Jammers were certainly forced to consider the question "what are the absolute minimum mechanical essentials for strategy?" When the materials at hand might only support some, or perhaps barely even one, of the "essentials", we'd better try to understand what they are!
I think struggling with that question, and clarifying ideas about what's important for strategy, was my most valuable takeaway from the jam.
Q2.
I don't think my game turned out very well. Approachability was an important design goal - the whole idea of keeping the card set small surely comes with a desire for something non-daunting and easy to pick up. But by opting for abstract, themeless mechanics my submission feels a bit like meaninglessly pushing cards around the table.
On the flipside of that I was stupidly pleased with the look of the abstract, themeless cards! Not being an artist I decided to go with just colours and shapes like Uno cards or something.
I also like the mechanic of using repeated little RPS "fights" between the players to supply some ongoing randomness, even though I can see it has questionable knock-on effects on other parts of the game. Having to use such a small set of components is great for being able to see when adding one mechanic squeezes something else out on the other side.
Q3.
No concrete future plans for this game, other than probably playing around with the prototype cards from time to time and hoping inspiration strikes.
But it's such a small design space you can easily mull it over in your head at random moments. If I do that I'll definitely be trying to think of ways to add more interesting persistent state within the players' hands, rather than it being limited to the "Texas Hold'em" style table cards like it is now.