It is my theory therefore that CRPGs should be more focused on abstraction than simulation.
The reason I don't go with that and go with immersion instead, is because simulation can be abstracted too, it just depends on the "grain" of the simulation. Like, for example, you can simulate ground conditions (muddy, dry, etc.) on each tile on a surface in a tactical game, but that's still an abstraction. I think also, by "immersion" people usually mean something related to, but different from engagement in the flow of gameplay, or the "flow state" itself, but I agree that you can "feel like Julius Caesar" or whatever, and have a sense of real kingdoms and armies in your mind, while playing a strategy game too.
Immersion is, simply, close to suspension of disbelief in lierature and entertainment media in general, or in a more philosophical sense, it's entertaining a counterfactual; and the quickest way of doing that for normies is presenting a cinematic experience, because it's closest to what they already know. However, experienced gamers, who can get it from more abstracted gameplay experiences, can
also get it from cinematic experiences - that's why it's the lowest common denominator, we can all get it that same way.
I think where I agree with you is that abstracted gameplay is often quicker and smoother in many ways, more "gamey." I guess it's getting the right mix - some aspects of the game, if they can be realized in more detail, then you can do it, but some aspects work better with a higher degree of abstraction (like, sometimes in a game it feels right to have like 15 different kinds of ammo, but sometimes it feels better to have just light and heavy or whatever, it's contextual and depends on many other factors).
