Chess 2. For me, it's called starcraft, and it already addresses all mentioned problems.
Nevertheless, I applaud game designer to have the balls to try to evolve something so established. Loving chess a lot, I'll certainly give that a try.
Nevertheless, I applaud game designer to have the balls to try to evolve something so established. Loving chess a lot, I'll certainly give that a try.
Maybe it's the case at the beginning, when realtime can be overwhelming, but at higher level, people have a lot of different tactics, be it build orders (like chess openings), general game flow and timing, specific offensive tactics (there are actually so many that getting information about what your opponent is doing is one of the most critical part of the game) and choosing army composition based on opponent's one weak points.
As for strategy, I think fast decision making should be considered in the field of strategy too : you have to act quick while still following a bigger plan, and be quick to change it in case of problem. After all, nobody would say blitz chess games are not about strategy. But yes, it can feel totally random for casual players, just like blitz chess.
I am not debating whether Starcraft has strategy, tactics or whether fast decision making is a cool element of a game. I think it's all true. It's just that in Starcraft those things are all only relevant when you're better at manipulating units than your opponent is.
It's what makes Starcraft more a sport than a game.