Agreed about the greatness of the post. I guess my only minor concern would be how non-contentious it is.I have one major and one minor disagreement. The minor (really minor) disagreement is, I believe I use the term "width" for what you're saying with "breadth", but that's like, not even important. But someone who watches this should know that we're talking about the same thing.The more major disagreement is that your post sorta has a tone of "you can make depth based games and width based games, and they're both great", whereas I would say that depth based games are absolutely the future of strategy game design, and width based games are like this crutch, this little weird blip on the timeline that represents "what we did before we understood what the hell we were doing". The interests of a "depth based game" line up perfectly with the interests of a strategy game, whereas the interests of a "width based game" don't; it's more of like a toy or perhaps puzzle type of value.