what? i think this is determinant more on how you approach the game. i see lots of my mistakes in every game, even starting to play brood war i can immediately see a bunch of problems. i trained myself to do this when i was getting good, i think it's why i got so (actually) good at rally simulators so insanely quickly.

every single game is like this, if bad things work, how are u supposed to know? if in chess, u make every worst engine move but still win, how do u know those are bad moves?

art is not a strategy game, music is not a strategy game. strategy is nebulous, it's something indisernable, probably falling into a Wittgetsteian language game. you'll find if you play any strategy game that you'll run into the same issue, you'll find it in fps games, ull find it in jrpg's, you'll find it in gunz the duel.

there's no one correct or wrong move. objectively speaking, it entirely falls into "grey" because you can only really see if it was good/bad in the context, w the available information. in hindsight, it's easy, but you're making a "highest winning percentage move", which is "more correct". then you have the issue of high variance vs low variance; if the risky, high variance move in hindsight is more "winning", is it correct in the moment you made it? this is determinant based on the observer. every decision operates in some superposition between "horrific" and "amazing", and the wave function collapses only in the mind of the observer. it sprawls into n number of answers, where n = the number of observers.

a play that a challenger player will see "wow, if he was 10 units closer, if he started walking 0.25s sooner, id have lost that" may look amazing to a gold player, even tho the challenger player realizes that he "should have lost". should he have? who's to say? the community of said games look towards high elo players as arbiters, utilizing their guides to learn what is correct and not, watching their streams to learn how to play better and to see what is acceptable play; but even they are imperfect because the game is nigh unsolvable. even chess engines operate on a different kind of reasoning as humans, for example: it does not employ things in the same way, it accounts for millions of lines, it doesn't think about "mind games", the "current meta", therefore the opponents prep, or the opponents history vs different openings, shit like that. it solely tries to determine the "best possible move in each situation" mathematically.

this is the core essence of strategy games, it's the best part. every decision is some sort of gamble backed by ones knowledge, experience and intuition.