By the same logic, chess Grand Masters also don’t use much strategy since their games last as long.
Some people like games to take longer, some like games to go faster. I’m for the latter option and that’s why I prefer to play Spring 1942 than Global or Anniversary and my games on either GTO or TripleA on average last that long, although the best games usually take longer.
By the same logic? Excuse me for pointing out, that moving 1 piece at a time, is alot different than moving dozens, that having 160 pieces in the box alone (not including chips) and 5 players - in a game of growing economy, is alot different than having 2 players and 32 pieces - in a game of piece elimination.
If this were a two player game of axis and allies, with 32 pieces, no dice, no purchases, and no non combat movement phase, no tech - and no chips, than yes - I believe strategy could be involved.
ALSO, comparing average players to GRAND MASTERS is ludicrous, Just becuase you and I, and 3 others, can sit down, and blitz out a SOLID game of global with an hourglass in less than 4 hours because we are masters of the game as opposed to average players that can take much longer.
The Strategic equation YOU need to consider, is how much time can be alloted for each piece, thus creating the strategic quotient wherby things can be compared.
Assuming both games are 2 hours long, 120MIN
Roughly speaking :
Chess- with diminishing exponents, 120 / 32 = 3.75 minutes of strategic thinking time per PIECE
A&A with GROWING exponents because new pieces are added, assume 160 pieces at setup 120 / 160 = 0.75 min per piece.
Consensus - LESS TIME + MORE PIECES = LESS STRATEGY and MORE DICE DETERMINATION
And we’re not even going to ask how long “experienced” players will take to blast through 41….
