1) BG3 and TB didn't seem to match.
TB is a gameplay interesting with fights which are set for it with a limited number of opponents.
The problem is with BG3 taht you can have to deal with tons of opponents and so it became a real pain.
I will never forget my fight against all the goblins village. It was looooooooooooooooooooong and borinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng.
I had my team on a high ground and I just shot them and shove the ones who succeed at climbing the ladder. There was 10 ? 15 ennemies ? Way too much.
So if TB is excellent in DD2 or Fire emblem or expedition vikings or a lot of games, it feels like BG3 isn't fit for it, at least not for every fights.
2) RtwP isn't strategic ?
I don't get this point. Why it would or why it was no strategic in the first place ? I did a lot of fights in BG2 and 3, or POE, or Pathinfder, or tyranny and it was never fights where I was juste watching and waiting for the end. You have to manage your fight, stay focus to see the moves or incantations from the ennemies and act accordingly. I don't understand why it would be less strategic than TB.
I remembered having played Baldur's Gate Trilogy with mod which enhanced the difficulty of the game. It was damn challenging and strategic.
Anyway, people can prefer TB, but, for sure,RtwP is strategic. Just in a different way.
(If I would criticize TB I could say that you have often like 4-5 turns in your mind already set and so you are just waiting for the fight to go without any surprise or really interest since you already anticipate it.)
3) It should be the two. It's doable, it have been done and it's what they should have done.
Why not doing something people want if you can when it's not this hard or expensive to do ?
I don't appreciate this behaviour. Just saying.
At the end, I would like to have RtwP for the thrill (as someone epxlained) but I would be fine if it's just a GOOD TB. Problem is, BG3 haven't actually a good system of fighting.
