No comment on almost universally awkward strategic interface with commands piling up in submenus and weird pointing controls, that make you a defenseless target?

ah yes.

And they have an almost universally awkward strategic interface with commands piling up in submenus and weird pointing controls, that make you a defenceless target.

I don't know what game you have been playing, but that is not how I felt playing Rainbow Six.

Edited

Ah sorry. My bad. He was created by the Aperture technicians as part of an attempt to make her less dangerous.

I assume though, that any AI actually designed by GLaDOS would be far less capable than she herself is. I somehow don't see her handling competition well.

Thank God, somebody! I was going through the thread, shocked that nobody seems to remember Hidden & Dangerous. Loved both H&D1 and H&D2 and it's just sad that the series disappeared into oblivion.

Other franchises that nobody mentioned are SpecOps and Dirty Dozen which, IIRC, also allowed for custom load-outs, switching among team-members like H&D - not to mention the Conflict series. And there was also the decent Close Combat spin-off First to Fight (which actually predicted a war in Lebanon for 2005 - which, as uncanny as it is, did occur, although in a somewhat different manner than in the game). But one of my favs was and remains Vietcong. Sadly nobody seems to remember this game while for me it remains one of the most memorable and immersive game experiences I've ever had.

But concerning the original question: it's obviously the low accessibility and extremely challenging gameplay that makes this genre so unpopular. And sadly both factors are things that simply were botched by the devs on a regular basis so the genre never really got the chance it deserved. Usually the interface and AI would be so screwed up that the tactical portion wouldn't work the way it should and the actual shooting/movement mechanics couldn't compete with regular shooters. Additionally for many tactical games an unsatisfying trial & error approach was just as (or even more) effective as playing them the "right way" and you got to avoid the awkward tactical interface / AI problems. That's one of the main reasons why many tactical shooters never got a chance to satisfy my, despite the fact that I'm rather tolerant when it comes to this kind of flaws.

Rainbow Six was always dumb. It's just that with Vegas it became a very different kind of dumb. The kind with extreme linearity, only one worthwhile gun.

The planning stages in the earlier games were just a failed attempt to compensate for the total lack of AI. You had two choices, play it alone or probably lose because of some supremely dumb shit. So they weren't tactical at all. Not if you wanted to win.

SWAT 4's AI was arguably a lot better. Arguably because your team mates were so pacifistic as to make Ghandi want to beat them to death with a monkey wrench. Even with non-lethal weapons they refused to use them even when a team mate was gunned down in front of them. Made me want to shoot them myself.

Again, you were better off alone. Which is exactly why I'd consider the Vegas games to be considerably better at being tactical games, simply because you could actually use your squad.

Brothers in Arms though is where it's at.

Damn tunnel mission, scared shitless with the pistol and one last save slot remaining.
It's not much on tactical control though.

The problem of tactical shooter interface is that you need a cursor and some overview to control strategy in comfort, while the shooter demands character camera and mouse aiming. Hired Guns and Captive on Amiga, or C64 Aliens (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efolLO2zcpc) had it even worse with no friendly AI.
The only way to completely solve it is to use voice controls and advanced AI capable of understanding "get your ass over there" and "you're in my way, sir"

Actually I don't think so. I think there's many other methods that have not been explored/developed enough while some may yet to be discovered - I'm thinking of more abstract features, of course. Personally I think that several ideas found in Hidden & Dangerous have gigantic potential but lacked polish. The character switching in H&D allowed me to position my support characters (snipers, machinegunners) in good spots while I would do the dirty work with a more stealthy guy accompanied by a more offensive dude - the result were often impressive situations that really made me feel like I'm working the way real commandos would do it, even if the feature gave every soldier a bigger awareness than he should have had. Additionally there was this tactical feature that paused the game, switched the perspective and allowed you to develop plans on the fly - it didn't work very well because the interface was overly complicated and the AI lacked strong independent abilities and analytical skills and would get stuck in unexpected places, but these are things that could be easily improved with today's technologies and processing power. Also Splinter Cell Conviction's feature where you can assign targets that would then be automatically eliminated by your character sounds to me like something that could be further developed to work well in a team-based game.

The thing is, these are all very abstract and supposedly unrealistic features but actually they serve as a substitute for the highly complicated communication and intelligence necessary to develop complex plans and tactics and may result in the most deep and immersive experience possible. I think many developers are making the mistake of either purely going for abstract solutions which makes the gameplay less immersive and unrealistic or going so much for realism that the player lacks the means to stay in control and develop more complicated plans. Mixing both approaches in a sophisticated way is certainly what I would go for in my own tactical shooter.

If it were up to me, We'd all be still using Swords, Crossbows and Spears :)

Because for me, they are the opposite of fun. Just like Scrabble, playing that takes some serious teeth gritting. I get some people like them, and I dearly hope you always have access to them, but I don't find them fun. That level of "realism" is like a kick in the nuts for me.

I suspect these are more niche now, like wargames, but hopefully, like wargames, they will see continued development.

Am I the only one who enjoys realism in games these days.

Call me a heritic, but I love how "Realistic" GTA 4 was in terms of driving and physics.

and I am getting tired of the "Games are made to be fun" rhetoric, why can't we have both or more.

I don't think you quite understand the concept of "niche market"

Also, I would like to use this post to tell people that "Hell Yeah! Wrath of the Dead Rabbit" is great and you should play it. It's totally not a tactical shooter.

Tactical shooters are great. Online, they can be as hardcore as gaming can get - which is a complete contrast to a lot of arcadey, console FPS games.

Point taken

Tactical Shooters, Survival Horrors exaclty like Alone in the Dark 1, and Stealth games are too niche these days :(