I think it’s just about impossible to set well-written cryptic crosswords that are easy to solve. The very nature of good cryptic crossword clues thwarts any attempt to circumvent the basic premise of disguise. That is, if a clue is well-written, it will have elements that make it impossible to breeze through it. Seamless joining of definition and wordplay will make the solver think twice every time; a definition that fits in with tone of the wordplay will make it hard to pin down, and clever use of word forms (adjectives, nouns, verbs etc) will throw a solver off the scent. Using these techniques when writing clues over the last 20 years has set my mind in such a way that toning it down or simplifying things is almost impossible for me. In fact, any efforts to do so usually end up with poor clues: ones that are so obviously not my style and ones that I would generally criticise if done by other people. Recently I had a go at doing some sample two-speed cryptics, you know the ones: two sets of clues, one cryptic, one straight, both with the same answers. The grids are smaller than usual and the words simpler as a two-speed crossword is generally seen as a training crossword, preparing solvers for the bigtime 15x15s. I failed miserably as even my clues for short words had enough twists to make them non-trivial. Any effort to simplify these clues resulted in clues I wasn’t able to bring myself to submit.
There are, of course, simple cryptic clue types, notably hiddens and possibly full anagrams. You’ll find a predominance of these in some cryptics often written in such a way that there’s no doubt what’s going on. Definitions are obvious; differentiation between definition and wordplay clear and wordplay that resolves first time every time. Simple, but not well-written, as no good cryptic clue, by definition, should be simple.