turn based is more "tactical" by traditional definition, real time is more "strategic" by the same. their level of complexity is mutually exclusive from their core concept.
risk and chess are both turn based games, one is considerable more complex than the other, just like poker is a more complex turn based game than go fish.
real time is more dynamic, which is more immersive. it is absolutely true that real time with pause titles have had balance issues and other problems in the past, but that is because it is a new technology comparatively. it should be nurtured and not stomped in to the ground by luddites who resist change. They were the ones back in 1998 who said it would never work, and they are still saying it today. For them, DOS3 is a victory and they are holding it dearly.
I truly believe that going back to turn based is a regression for computer gaming. Baldur's Gate was never meant to be a replica of the table top game. Both Larian and Wizard have ignored this and this is why fans have become upset at them.
I'm not gonna get into if turn-based or real-time is better as theres another topic for that and it seems like a circular discussion. But I will point out that other games have gone from turn-based mechanics to real time and then back to turn base with great success. Xcom for example, the original was turn based and later the UFO series were real time with pause and now with firaxis back to turn base. No ones calling firaxis luddites for that decision.
Success is not going to be determined by the mechanics of combat only by how immersive and fun the game will turn out to be and theres more to a dnd game than combat, although it will certainly play a part in the ratio of success. Bottom line is that it being turn based or real time based is not a big deal.
