That's how I compared popular strategy games with popular non-strategy games. And strategy games lose in any case.

I probably wrote it in a rambling way, but my main point is that you shouldn't rely on a game becoming super popular when you're making it. Investors look at Dota's stats, say, "Wow, it's so cool, even the non-peak online is 500k, let's jump into the MOBA genre! Come on, faster, I'll give you money!" – but with 99% probability, at best, they'll end up with Smite... Which, by the way, is also one of the most popular representatives of the genre, it appears in the news, yes, but it doesn't quite reach the level of a mediocre strategy game (let alone a top-tier one like Civilization).

In the end, no one knows how much money was invested in it. Maybe it paid off well. Maybe the developers are now struggling to pay off their loans.

But you can aim from the very beginning at the underserved audience of strategy gamers, who will basically eat up anything. Yes, you probably won't be swimming in gold (or ore, gems, timonium, or energy credits) because of them, unless you're lucky enough to be one of the chosen few. But regarding your final statement:

The thing is, not everything is. Any business is a risk of losing all your money. Publishers probably have some statistics on probabilities and will invest more where there is less risk of losing money and where they can earn at least something. I highly doubt that strategy games are on the list of low-risk, high-profit ventures; rather, the opposite.

– I think strategy games are actually one of the least risky. Even with Olden Era, nostalgic players immediately flocked to it, providing news and discussions, which served as advertising, and given the indie costs, you can almost guarantee that the developers aren't just barely making ends meet, and the publisher will get their share. And any good strategy game is immediately met with, "Oh, finally, I can spend an evening after work building a couple of kingdoms," among a whole bunch of loyal fans who enjoy this kind of pastime, and who are pleased, at best, once a year.

The expected profit may be small, yes. There are no super-profitable DOTAs among strategy games.

Also, the monetization scheme itself – a person comes, buys. Or decides that it's too expensive and doesn't buy. It doesn't sound very profitable compared to "lure them in with a free-to-play game, and then once they're hooked, make them pay with microtransactions, muahahaha." Most large publishers don't want to work hard and earn little; they'd rather make one project that will be a hit and can be milked for years, and you'll just lazily add and sell skins in it.

But – if your players are lured away by competitors, then you'll be left with nothing... But in offline genres, your job is to sell it, and if you sell it well, you can also make DLC that's simpler and faster. I don't see how this can be more risky and difficult to plan; it seems more like it's just about greed.