It's not a popular opinion on GAF but I'd actually favor a RTwP system. Implemented well it offers all the control of a turn based system when you want it, but only when you want it.
My two biggest problems with RTWP:
1. The information feedback is inferior to a true turn-based system.
In theory, you have all of the same information available to you. In practice, things move too fast and you end up glossing over most of the interesting combat details. Quick example: does anyone pay attention to hit percentages in a RTWP game? Contrast that with XCOM:EU, where a single hit percentage (and a single subsequent hit or miss) is deeply engaging. What ends up happening in most RTWP games is that because of the poor feedback, the player is incentivized to optimize their character outside of combat, and maybe make a few macro-level decisions inside of combat, but will spend most of their time in battles letting their party fight with default attacks or on autopilot.
2. The pausing becomes a game in itself, and a generally boring, tedious one.
Let's assume you do want to pay attention to details as much as you would in an equivalent turn-based game. As you say, you can potentially have the same level of control, just by pausing at appropriate moments.
The issue is that in practice, you're going to have to play a tedious metagame to pause appropriately. Consider ranged attacks. In a turn-based game, you can carefully position your ranged characters so that you'll hit some enemies at the edge of your range. By the time the enemies can move far enough to hit you, you might be able to reposition your ranged attackers and move some other party members in to screen them.
In a RTWP game, this sort of situation is basically untenable. You're going to have to carefully watch the screen and hit the pause button at just the right moment to make sure the enemies are just inside of your attack range. Then you'll have to unpause, then pause again once the attacks actually hit the enemies. Then you can give your units move orders, then unpause, and hope that you estimated the distance the enemies can move before your next attack correctly.
It becomes a huge hassle for all except the hugely dedicated. Most people will just use the same simple set of ranged tactics over and over--plop some meatshields in front of the enemies and keep your ranged guys at the back. The alternative is spending lots of time and effort with a small and uncertain payoff.
This is one situation among many. RTWP entails careful timing, visual estimation, and a willingness to pause and unpause continuously. Those elements might work well in other types of games, but for party-based RPG combat, they take the focus away from pure strategizing.
---
I understand your argument that a game should only offer lots of control to the player when they want it, but I disagree. It's simple: if you don't need lots of control and careful thought to prevail in combat, why is that combat there? Is it a speed bump? Is it solely a way to evaluate how well you've built your character outside of combat? Is it a grind--something to fill time as you engage with a game's progression elements? Lots of games use combat in that way, but as a game that purports to focus on a low frequency of high-quality encounters, Torment definitely shouldn't.
(Sorry for the length of this rant)
