My opinion is that games can be complex and still appeal to many people, so long as they don't start complex.
Look at the Civ games, you may or may not enjoy them, but you ought to admit that from a game design perspective they are quite good. The player doesn't start off with hundreds of choices, he has a manageable number, which gradually expands as the game goes on. A fair amount of complexity in replaying the game, but a manageable amount at the start.
I found Victoria to be a bit too complex right off the bat. Granted, I only play EU2 at Hard/Aggressive and I don't WC etc, so I am not saying that I am a top EU2 player by any means. However, I think I rank far above the average game buyer in ability to get into a game like Victoria, especially given my EU2 experience. Making complex game naturally limits the market for the game, which is a tough thing to demand of a guy who has bills to pay.
I think the answer is to have a couple different settings to the game, with complex areas abstracted at lower complexities. E.g. on "easy" all the DP sliders are hidden, and the computer just gives you a decent average, or broad choices through events. If you cannot design the game to naturally progress from fairly simple to very complex during the course of each game, then allow the players to set the complexity they are willing to handle. They can increase it as they get comfortable with the system.
FWIW this seems to be the approach that Gary Grigsby (talk about complex!) is going with in his new WW2 game. It certainly adds to the developer's complexity, since each level of complexity needs to be playable. However, if each item removed from the game is simply abstracted to some "normal", then the game really doesn't play differently as far as the system goes, it just seems less complex to the players (i.e. all the DP sliders are in the background, but they still exist).
When most people open a box and confront something like EU2/Victoria etc, they are simply overwhelmed, and most don't stick it out. We have to recognize that the designers need to sell games to stay in business, and the realities don't help complex games, but I think we can hope that games will have optional aspects that still give the rest of us the depth we desire.
[btw I'm not slamming Vicky, and I'll keep buying the games (just ordered TT), complex or otherwise, but I only have so much time, and there's only so many learning curves I can enjoy climbing each year]
Both are good games, but not anything near as good as EU2. But since CK is going to be a very different game, I certainly hope that we can get something of a "best of" kind of complexity!
