|
Yet a well-designed combat system would reward clever strategy. So what exactly are you arguing? That badly designed combat systems appeal to stupid people?
World chess champions - people who have trained from childhood - compete with powerful supercomputers for five or six digit prizes. And that's in a simple game played on a board with 64 squares and 32 pieces. A game which doesn't even have to cater to the element of chance. Maybe you should get into monkey-training business? If your theory is right, you could make a fortune!
Ah! So if Vladimir Kramnik had been more intelligent, he would have become an actor? But obviously not being smart enough for that, he was only able to become the world chess champion?
Which forces the player to prepare for the unexpected, and learn to adapt to new situations as they arise - no longer can you consistently rely on the same strategy, expecting it to work the same way every time.
"Military tactics are like unto water; for water in its natural course runs away from high places and hastens downwards... Water shapes its course according to the nature of the ground over which it flows; the soldier works out his victory in relation to the foe whom he is facing. Therefore, just as water retains no constant shape, so in warfare there are no constant conditions. He who can modify his tactics in relation to his opponent and thereby succeed in winning, may be called a heaven-born captain." - Sun Tzu
|