by dond80
To clarify, when I said "point well-taken" I did mean that to be recognition of an error David pointed out. The error is that "suffered" is a word that carries with it an assessment, but my position on complexity is almost entirely based on how much depth/replayability comes with it. In other words, I don't want to spend an hour learning complex rules to a game when the game ends up being simplistic in strategic depth and not replayable. But if I end up replaying a game a dozen times, that hour of rules doesn't seem to be such a bad upfront time investment.So, it was not logical to use the word "suffered" since it made an assessment of complexity in a vacuum that I don't really ever make. The better statement would have been, "while all three games involve high degrees of complexity, vinhos suffers from a bad complexity to depth/replayability ratio when TM and Trajan do not."