Well the issue is how to adjudicate those kind of results; if your average exalt is already trivially rolling the number of success that is several OOM better then human capability; its much easier to depict that for fightyness as simply hitting harder and causing bigger explosions compared to something being a superlative general that makes Hannibal and Napoleon looks like chumps. Like as a GM how the heck are supposed to illustrate that as much in detail as the Dawn solar who with a single swing of sword causes a ripple that shreds boulders or whatever. Like I personally just do what oMage and just go with all the great people in history were actually mages; which scales down things to level that is actually workable and have actual examples to work with.
That's... workable, but I can't help but consider that criminally boring, condensing all of history to 'a mage did it'. I do get that it's your personal approach though and not a blanket statement.
I agree that the amount of effort required to articulate high level or esoteric Exalted prowess is daunting- and it's been a consistent failure of the game across three editions to effectively teach us
how to play it.
A way to adjucate those results, outside of written mechanics, is to break down the actual 'feat' into smaller chunks, and that's difficult. A cursory skim of the history of Hannibal crossing the Alps, for example, describes
dozens of things that were happening concurrently that were being addressed either simultaneously, or in-sequence. Deciding how to break everything down is a skill learned by practice and instruction, neither of which people get enough of.
A minor tangent but an important one to acknowledge in game design is that of refractory or the gameplay loop. They're separate things but connected here. Refractory is how long it takes to 'reset' to neutral or starting position. Exalted and a lot of TTRPGs have a very high, long refactory, because if you die, you have to remake your character, expend a whole lot of effort, and so on. Paranoia, (the game) meanwhile, has very low 'immediate' refractory because you have clone bodies ready to go.
In a specific scene or storyline sense, TTRPGs have a medium to high refractory, because they're primarily focused on resolving actions and consequences, and the management of resources. The longer you attack a specific problem, the less you tend to have, as most games are balanced or designed around the idea of spending resources and waiting to recoup them.
A gameplay loop is essentially the core mechanics of a game that 'cycle' in such a way as to self-reinforce. This is most common in video games, which are designed with loops in mind. Exalted has very elaborate, interlinked gameplay loops, because it's not a 'fixed' system with a centralized, procedural resolution mechanic. You aren't moving from setpiece to setpiece ala a first person shooter or videogame RPG. Plot A mingles with plot B and you can tangent off to side project C, etc.
Anyway, back to hannibal for a moment. The 'goal' of Exalted as a game should have been to arm the storyteller with the tools and vocabulary to describe an environment, in which there is 'an Alps', and then given enough detail for the players to in turn identify that marching over the Alps has a strategic or tactical advantage, or the costs to doing so can be mitigated, thus making it a viable option.
Finally, this leads to the philosophy of 'play'. Fun is subjective, based on personal aesthetic and experience.
Play is objective, as it is essentially defined as 'something that has flexibility and looseness'. You can 'play' with it. Wiggle, make it go left or right, adjust your grip on it, and in terms of game design,
optimize.
The best games are the ones that create a very stable set of rules that in turn creates a very fluid, dynamic environment in which to
use those rules. Too few rules means arbitration is a waffly nightmare. Too many and you burden the players with complexity. In context of Exalted, being able to approach a problem in three broad categories of Fight, Talk and Smart is 'play'. Being able to further diversify into abilities, Charms and Spells is more Play. Speaking for myself, I enjoy the 'play' of artifact and charm design, because i have tools (grammar and technical writing) that have play (words communicate meaning), which in turn can result in new or optimized behaviors (the charm is considered well written or functions as intended.)
So
again back to hannibal- the objective of anything in game design is achieving sufficient Play. Mechanics should exist that govern assets and features like 'this is a city' and 'this is a mountain range' and 'this is a naval power', and those definitions should in turn inform and describe to players the means with which to interact with them. Do you lay siege to the city, or offer an alliance. Do you climb over the mountain, or demolish it. Do you fight the navy on high sea, or summon a storm god to defeat it?
Apologies for the ramble, but I felt it relevant.