Death of Micro in the RTS Genre? and Maybe SC2 will save it?

Not just in Starcraft and Warcraft, but in general? (Of course I'll make a point about SC2 in the end)

I've recently "bought" a few RTS games (being my favorite genre) and noticed something I'm sure has been discussed everywhere, the micro-managing. Personally, I enjoyed the old, must-mirco-manage-every-unit-individually-or-die-painfully-against-fellow-pros-and-vets style, it's what makes RTS unique from FPS or RPG and MMORPGs. If you f*ck up, you know it and die painfully, just like any other genre. Back to the new RTS games I've acquired, it seems that every one of them has 3298 safety walls.

Examples:

1. Spell casting- Some games have single cast for you, so even if you click 10 wizards and cast fire ball only one does.

2. Unit selection- I've seen from 12 ~ 48! units per selection box, and that's with around a 50 unit cap (I think it's 150 food).

3. Moving- The speed some games carry out is just wrong, it takes one entire minute to walk across a map with buffs from casters, yeah.... NO!

4. Size- Unites are <-----------------------------------------this-------------------------------------------> big, makes running from AoE a bi*ch and by the time your out the AoE is over, so every single on hits every time, not how it works!

5. Resources- Click one guy to a tree, and he chops it. Click ten guys to a tree, they separate and cut different trees on their own without the lag of all going and stumbling around one tree, a little thing, but I think it seperates the good from the pitiful.

6. Damage output v. Health- Not high enough. I don't know if any of you played LOTR or AOE the new ones, but it takes years for a battle to end, by the time it's over you already have another army for another 80 minute battle. When one unit can take fire from 20 range units and strut around for a while, your know there is a problem, whatever happened to planning and speed?

7. Speed- Speed just doesn't matter anymore in so many games. As long as you have access to the internet, pass the idiot test of spelling out the word 'google' and then type in "RTS game name build order" you can be successful, even if you don't know any hot keys, and have only two fingers on each hand.

8. Auto-casting- Just no, period.

9. Strategy- I could be wrong, but the 'S' in RTS still stands for strategy right? Games now have one generic strategy that works against every other race, so it's not a can you figure out what to do in this specific situation, it's how fast can you press the same buttons every time after starting a new game.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Starcraft 2 can still save this I believe, especially because it's Blizzard. Blizzard has money off WoW like many of us can't contemplate, so although selling copies of SC2 is still important, they can do without a couple thousand or ten-thousand that would play SC2 because they made it idiot-proof.

From what I can see as of now, SC2 passes many of my complaints and fails only a few. Although there is great influence between the Warcraft and Starcraft team, they are still separate, and I truly hope Starcraft 2 takes only the good from Warcraft 3.

Now many of you have stopped reading after point 3~4 and decided to take a stand, and less than a third of you are reading this right now so I'll conclude here.

There is a reason people are playing a game made in the late 90's, and graphics obviously isn't one of them. I could NOT care less if the graphics make units look like plastic barbies, or if psi blades are suddenly pink, and half-the heores are missing in the storyline (well, okay, yeah I would care, but on with my point) the GAMEPLAY matters more than any of that crap (relatively).

So, is SC2 going to be another great RTS game in Blizzard's belt because of it's innovation? Maybe... Graphics? Maybe... Pure fun? Maybe... Second by second, nerve wracking, game that actually requires thinking, understanding of the game, units and keys, and that little thing I like to call strategy? I damn well hope so.

/discuss


Coherent thoughts, detailed, organized. Bonus 300 minerals for a great post.

 

im guessing one of the RTS you got is LOTR: Battle For Middle Earth?

Something tells me that SCII will be another great RTS game. It is a feeling in the gut you know?

 

just because you dont need to focus on macro as much means the micro will be gone.

 

I beg to differ. The less we micro-manage, the more we get accustom to lazy ass, AI does everything for us. Then when a truly good game comes out, no one plays it because it's too "primitive" because the AI can't walk up a damn hill for you, or gather resources on their own after you build them.

Given Blizzard's track record, they will make another great game, and although I enjoyed WC3, there is a reason I'm still playing SC.

 

Well... in all fairness, you don't have to know how to spell google.

-"Search.... Guigle"

-"Did you mean.... Google?"

-"Yea! That's it!" *click*

But you're mostly right. Starcraft is the last bastion of true RTS play. That's why it's still (by far) the #1 RTS game ever made. Think about it... competitors have had 10 YEARS to build greatness off of what Starcraft has shown them. No one could do it. Why? Because the Starcraft universe provided us with the best storyline, best unit plots, best strategy via 3 UNIQUE RACE balances, and an enduring style of gameplay.

Even Blizzard couldn't top themselves. Instead they made the mistake of putting 4 races in WC3 which made it into Footman = Footman = Undead Guy = Elf Dude. All the units have same HP/Attack just a different skin.

So is SC2 a chance to improve upon the SC1 style? Heck yes. But at the same time its a chance for failure.

It's just like Coca-Cola. Sure there's a mixture that will be better than the original, but there's also worse combinations. But I trust Blizzard to make me a Cherry Coke.

 

Although there has been an influx of sh*tty RTS games recently, C&C 3 just to name one, the genre is hardly dead, especially in terms of micro. We have Supreme Commander, which was pretty good, as well as Dawn of War, and best of all the recent RTS's, Company of Heroes. Company of Heroes especially focuses a lot on micro, although from a cursory glance it may not appear so. Sure, the units find cover on their own and everything, but they still can't survive that long without your traditional micro and general baby-sitting. I'd suggest that you try out those three games I've mentioned as well as World in Conflict if you haven't already. I'm guessing you haven't checked them out since in those games, the points you brought up hardly exist. To me, it looks like you've taken the mediocre games and judged that micro was dead.

Imo, the RTS genre is in decline. The golden days are gone. Those were the times when games like C&C, Starcraft, and Total Annihilation came out. Will there be games as good as those? Only time can tell. My point is, though, there are still a lot of games out there with a lot of emphasis on micro. Don't look at the games that are just okay, look at the ones that absolutely kick a** as well and decide from there.

 

Starcraft Orginal is really a one of a kind game. There has been no better RTS since then. As a warhammer fan, I played Dawn of War before and as much as the graphics are cool and all. With the innovation of squads and moral, sry its still not nearly as good as SC orginal. Squad makes you can't micro worth shit, and if you can play one race in DoW you can basically play the other races basically just as well.

Starcraft is great because not only the balance, lots of games are balanced. But its the diversity of each individually race unique playing style. A player can't just switched one race to the other and expect to play just as good. Also, the control a player has in the game. If you know what you doing you can control the game.

Some game have so much units and specialization of units that you can't control the game with your oppentant and it introduces the aspect of chance. By this I mean theres so many ways you can get killed that you don't know what your oppentant is doing that you just have to guess what you are going to build. With Starcraft you can control the game, you see a early gas, or a pool you know what your oppentent is doing.

Anyways, I don't want to go on to a rant here, but as much as i hope SC2 will be as good or better than the Orginial right now it doesn't seem like its going to be. Gameplay wise at least. I won't post all the problems I see here it would be too long. I'll probably post it on my blog sometimes so people can go read it. But just to hint it out, theres something really wrong with the playing style of SC 2 just by looking at the units.

 

First, I'd like to say a Hi, since I'm new to these fourms, now to answer w/o over quoting everything.

@Joneagle_X
Agreed completely, SC had three different races which makes the strategy portion great, and fixes a lot of flaws.

@markus
I don't doubt there is always something to do, but it's at a point now where you have as much to do during resource collecting and upgrading as you do it battle! Cast 2 spells, move a couple of units to kill some range units, and it's over. There is no planning, there are too many direct counters (i.e. 'x' will ALWAYS kill 'y'), and everything is automated to the point that you can press 'a' and some random spot on the ground near the enemy base, get a soda, come back, and see that you won because you had 40 more troops and everything is generic.

My argument is not for inefficiency, although I may have taken it too far with the walking up a hill argument. The AI shouldn't be total numbskulls, but the AI should be playing for the human either. War is war, you should have almost constant attention on the battle at hand, not dilly dalling to your base to check on your units and upgrades, build a few random buildings, replace some units without retreating first, and come back to the battle to find yourself winning.

@Wlck742
Funny you should mention Company of Heroes, because that is what I'm playing right now. Although it does passes MOST of my complaints up top. I feel the strategy portion is a bit lacking, as heavy fire can take out anything once you have enough resources, even anti-tank and such, and enough can end the fun running around hitting it's weak points plot. Some units are useless, or so close to useless you may as well not use them, and there are only two 'races' to play. Of course that's only the bad, as I will admit it does fare better than most RTS I've played especially in war alone. Unfortunately the storyline is another WWII one, eventually the allies are going to have to lose.

C&C 3 I'm not going to comment as I have not played it, but the last C&C game I played was unplayable because of random bugs.

Dawn of War was strategically great, and once again the battles were amazing, especially the sheer size of it, but I thought it was at the pinnacle of automatism. The various custom armies and legions eventually with different roles and such were great to learn and use, but a lot of things I thought the player should've done were being done. After an assignment and a few clicks you're done, and mostly during and after the battle there is a bunch of clean up, but not enough, for me at least, is done right in the middle of the action. Once again I point out the bad, but I'll admit it is a solid RTS and I did enjoy it.

@TalkSC.com
I agree that looking at the units I start thinking, "Plastic, and NOT what Starcraft is about." Of course they probably resulted from all those people from original teams leaving Blizzard, but I'm sad the vets. consented to turn Starcraft into what I'm seeing atm, hopefully it gets better, or shatters my current expectations.

Edit: I guess it's only fair to mention another few hyped-up RTS games, namely Ghost Recon End War and Halo Wars, but from my perspective they're both just auto-fests with a few gimmicks that give preview writers material.

 

Does the game have to be a click-fest to be good. I don't see the problem allowing the computer to think for itself and actually try to survive. I honestly can't stand games with no AI and a shitty UI because the shortcomings work against you. I hate to say it but with the 12 unit selection limit and lack of auto gather Starcraft is in that category. Its a great game yes but fixing up the UI a little would go a long way.

I think strategy games should NEVER be based solely on APM. They should be based upon strategic prowess. The person who wins should be the person who has the better mix of units and is able to flank the enemy or otherwise take advantage of the enemies weakness. Directional armor is a step forward in this regard because the person who gets behind the other will win. Remember it is called real time STRATEGY. Strategy should be involved. Having to click to do everything is not strategy.

My message as always to those who hate auto everything and can't stand an interface that does anything and would rather have to click to do anything is this: If you don't like it play Dune 2 which has no right click orders or hotkeyed groups then come back and tell me how much you hate UI improvements

 

I'll just go down the list and give my opinion

1. I disagree about this one. Sure it prevents stupid people from making stupid mistakes but it also allows good players to use abilities more efficiently. In SC1 a bad player would have all his ghosts lockdown the same carrier. If this had been implemented in SC1, yes a bad player would no longer be able to to this, but a good player could very quickly use all his ghosts to lockdown 1 carrier for every one of his ghosts in much less time than would require if he had to indivdually select each ghost before casting. I think increasing the speed of the battle by doing things like this is a bigger plus.

2 I'm not sure what your getting at with this one.

3. I agree, it shouldn't take forever to get around the map. I know some games are so painfully slow just because the units are all slow a hell but at the same time, it shouldn't be to quick. I guess starcraft was about the right speed, wc3 was a bit slow, especially when having to deel with creeps.

4. For units that are supposed to be small, like marines or zealots, I agree. They should be small. Some units, like Thor, should be big ass bitches who can't dodge shit.

5. I disagree, I like being able to tell just set a rally point and let my workers have at it and just go back and double check to make sure the AI isn't being its usual retarded self. Though your right, it isn't a big thing, and also not having the AI tell your workers where to go could save some headaches. The AI doesn't always make the best decisions about these sorts of things.

6. Agree

7. Also, agree. Speed should be very important. Being able to build up your base and army as fast as possible should be hugely important. If you dilly dally and let ques sit empty when you have resources sitting around you should have to pay. Maybe I haven't played enough new RTS's, actually I haven't played any, but how has this changed? How can this not be a key determinant in whether your a good player of not. How can a game be so idiot proof that speed doesn't matter?

8. I like auto casting for healers but that's about it. I don't want to have to tell my medics to heal my marines.

9. I agree here and am wondering how this could not be in a game. There should be a counter to every situation and a counter to that counter.

 

Well, there is plenty of micro in Age of Emipres 3 and Dawn of War series. Trust me if you don't micro well you will die in those games big time.

Sure there are a few features that make it easier but it doesn't kill the micro in most cases.

SD-Count, you make it like they totally got rid of micro and destroyed how the genre is played, which isn't the case.

Also if you don't like how they are turning out, you don't have to play them.

 

Hopefully sc2 will allow for more microing as the news from blizzcon seemed to point towards a less micro intensive game then the oringal......
I think its a trend and maybe rts's are moving into the next phase of there evolution, the age of casual gamers that don't like heavy micro games and like giant graphicly flashy battles instead..... Hopefully not thought......

 

Now that I re-read my first post, it does sound like a rant which was not the direction I wanted to go in. I wanted an objective analysis but obviously no one can truly be objective.

*I do believe in answering every reply in a thread I start, that's what I do on every form, even if it's to agree XD.*

@BirdofPrey
I agree with you 100%. Removing all AI and UI would be stupid, and pointless. On the flip side, adding too much AI and UI would be as harmful to the genre. Unfortunately RTS games used to be both managing your army and COMMANDING it in combat. Nowadays it's a lot more about the creating part and the fighting part is mostly computer based.

How many people still know how to use shift+move/shift+attack? Very few because it's not necessary, the high hp count and low damage count in addition to slow moving units makes it worthless to try and flank or go for range units first or run from towers, a simple a+left click is enough.

Once again, and to stress this point, I do NOT think clicking everything RTS good game make, not my view. My view is this: AI should never be able to take over for a human in the RTS genre when you click attack ground and then go take a nap and have hopes of winning, even with a somewhat superior army. Now obviously if you have a massive army against someone who doesn't know what they are doing, that's another story. Finally, creating a better army should not replace competent battle moves and casting (this includes for the MOST part AoE spells) but in many many many games I've so far, this is the major case.

@Quanta

1. I believe group casting is what seperates the good from the bad. (use men and boys if you will) If this is implemented, someone who actually took the time to learn how to switch units effectively would be forced to be dumbed down to someone who just spams "t" and left click. I can see where your going and that's the annoyance factor as well as it helps both old and new, but I think learning how to individually cast is important or there's no difference between someone who's dedicated and prefers RTS games to life and some 4 hour 6 year old who knows how half the letters on the keyboard says.

2. Basically, it aids in having an all out assault. Select all your units, attack ground, go get a cold one. Come back, you just destroyed some random town.

3. /

4. Yes, unit sizes are important, but when "small" is a a quarter of a building, there's something wrong.

5. I'm not saying take all the AI out of it, but if someone sends 10 guys to a tree, they should at least get punished by having the 10 guys each touch the tree separately and then going their ways, but what I'm saying is, you click some workers, click ANY tree, and they go to the nearest uninhabited one and begin their work.

6. /

7. The tier one buildings take a long time, so in campaign when your up against already built bases, if you don't go 2~3 tier one's you won't get a army built in time. Tier two and three and above are unbearable, which completely takes out the quality>quantity factor for the tech tree climbers.

8. Well medics can't attack, so I don't count that as auto, but yea,

 

I think what has been done where it is one click one fire for the abilities is a good thing. A more experienced player will still use it better. Also in most situations time is precious. I don't want to have to waste my time selecting units one by one. Take for example WiCa fast paced RTT. You have some heavy helis attacking some Heavy AA. First thing you have to do is use hellfires to get the advantage. It has one click one fire so using waypoints you can quickly set up an attack allowing all the missiles fire at the same time while the helis the attack the undestroyed enemies. If you had to select each unit individually you would never be able to pull it off. Starcraft is also a fast paced game where every millisecond is working against you.

 

SC2, at least, in the many of cases I've checked, uses one-click-one-fire to great effect. Ghosts using Snipe will generally kill the unit they attack, so having three go at one unit would never be expected. It is obvious enough that Blizzard gave newbs some slack, freed up a few milliseconds for the pros, and allowed Ghosts in groups to know that only one should fire. I am pretty sure this also applies for Drop Pods and Nukes.
When using the Reaper's time bomb however, you generally expect to be throwing several of them: Reapers are built to move in packs, the bombs don't actually do that much damage alone, so one command to use that ability to a group will order all of them to use it.

Now, I know I'm dropping into an abstract view, but one-click also applies to Warp In from Warp Gates. When multiple Gates are selected and the player orders the group to build a Zealot, only one Gate will actually complete the order, one Zealot is placed. To place many, you have to use a waypoint, command on the group and place each one.
If it had been the other way around, a player could very quickly dump a dozen units onto one clump of psi, but they would lose the strategy and finesse of the waypoint-place. Even pros would opt to do this because the time investment in selecting each individual Warp Gate and issuing a build order would take much, much longer with very minimal rewards. In this situation, the "safety net" defiantly improves the depth of the game for everyone involved.

I've played games (online, clearly not even commercial quality) where you can only select one unit at a time, so moving groups is nearly impossible. Selection groups obviously make this easier to do, the game is automating the the orders of every unit within the group you are selecting. Instead of ordering 5 units to do the exact same thing, you are ordering 1 group, and they'll all do the exact same thing..Limited selection groups don't add any real strategy to the game, they add artificial barriers, invisible walls.
There is nothing wrong with being able to select every unit you own, say "go kill that" and have them do it. Does it seem like an optimal solution to any but the most unbalanced game? Think about it, a small selection group only means that, instead of selecting 50 units and telling them to go do their thing before you go take a bathroom break, you're selecting 4 groups of 12, a group of 2, and ordering them to do their thing before you go take a bathroom break. They're still going to roll over whatever you told them to roll over while you're away, but with large selection groups, you're not wasting your time giving 5 attack orders when only 1 is needed.
One might argue: "giving all of these units the same order takes away from both strategy and tactics, you can't flank, focus on types, pull back or charge forward within a battle when every unit is trying to do the same thing" to which I would respond: "Just because you can put all of your units into one selection group doesn't mean you have to." See? large (and SC2 has infinite) selection groups add to strategy while only removing redundant clicks.

On unit speed, just a comment: I am one of those weirdos that can have fun in a long, slow game. Admittedly, it isn't practical, at all, as the standard template for multiplayer matches (I'm looking at you SupCom) but it isn't in itself a flaw. I someday envision a large scale MMORTS where this would be absolutely necessary, but this isn't the topic, so I'll leave it at that.

Unit size: Think of a Marine, think of a Missile Turret, think of a ratio. I think you get my point. But that point isn't the big point.
Scale is extremely relative. The problem with large units is that you can't see anything when they're around, you can't click anything when they're around. The problem with small units is that you can't see them when they're around, you can't click them when they're around. Clearly these things should be neither.
Now, there are a few solutions to this problem. You could make it like a board game: where everything is exactly the same size, or you could make it so that it is possible to view both large and small units with clarity. As is the case: StarCraft and most RTSs go for the first choice, because the second choice would involve dynamic scaling, done in SupCom through the infinite zoom-out, but with a loss of reaction time as you move from one level of scale to another.
I imagine this could be done in another way, but apart from not having an implemented example, it is a bit strange to describe and would be even stranger to experience. Let me just say this: while size is nice, and scale is important, it is the way that they are expressed that really affects the way a game plays.

I'm ignoring the "any tree-- nearest tree" complaint because, well, that, far from making it easier, a safety for players, takes away their ability to choose which resources get mined: say, ones that don't have enemy siege weapons waiting just out of sight. I would day that makes it harder, more skill-oriented, but as I do stress, skill differentiation can only come after practicality and fun.
Let's say I order 10 Probes to a patch of minerals, they all hit the first cluster, but then go off to find their own cluster as soon as they see that it is taken. While I hate to speak of "punishing" a player, (if you go down that road you're doing something wrong) the fact that the paths to the patches are not straight lines for 9 of the probes, and therefore not the shortest paths, does effectively punish the player for not microing them into place. Interestingly, it reduces the "punishment" compared to the units acting like total morons and just sitting, waiting for their turn, by a lot, but it leaves room for improvement, for perfection. That's the hole that pros could still fill with their 600 ms split.
Later in the game, even the pros stop examining their workers under a microscope, and the time they take to order a shiny, freshly-minted Probe to mine is time they'd rather be spending doing something else. Maybe, since the unit exists only to fulfill one brainless function, the player can order it to perform that function as soon as it is built. So, workers hitting a mineral cluster would be able to realize that they don't have to wait in line to work, and if they're sent somewhere where a particular task is the only task that would make sense (say, a clump of minerals), they should do it.
Oddly enough, this is exactly how it is done in SC2.

Yes, many RTS developers are clueless about what makes an RTS great, some aren't. Some are just selling their game to a different audience, some just want to perfect a few cool mechanisms, and find themselves ignoring other ones. Blizzard is one of the ones that is on top of things, perhaps one of the only ones on this genre, but Blizzard is, among game developers, one of the elite. You shouldn't expect everyone else to be able to emulate their effect with every game.

 

Couldn´t have said it better 10-Neon.

I don´t think SC2 should be a Action game in disguise. Operating the game should be as easy as possible. Every action a Player makes in a RTS should be a desicion, ordering freshly build workers to harvest is no desicion.
Real Time means for me that:
1. Games can´t be played by email.
2. Games don´t take a week to finish.
3. No Hexagons.
4. You have to make your desicions with Time pressure. <- important one

Of course you have to order around your units in battle and the faster the better - but that should not be the central deciding factor in a Strategy Game. Atleast not alone.

But the most important part for me is that I want the game to be fun - and a 10 year old UI isn´t. Competative gaming has many needs but the most important one isn´t keeping out noobs with archaic UIs - it´s Fans. Fans that watch matches. Fans that lure in Sponsors. What was the last Tournament in anything without any Sponsor? There are none!

 

@BirdofPrey
I never said it would not benefit a pro-player, but it removes what I like calling the line between the experienced and the new players. Yes, clicking one to one is a huge waste of time, but it is a skill you can learn. Rather than sitting there going, 'hotkey'+click; 'hotkey+click',...etc. you actually move your mouse going group, single select, move, cast, group, single select, move elsewhere, cast, which involves a lot more strategy as the battle constantly changes.


@10-Neon
Same as above, I believe if you command three snipers to snipe, or 5 medics to blind, they all should go snipe / blind. Selective casting allows pro-players to use each unit to its full potential and use each individual unit specifically and each unit uniquely. It may be annoying at first, but once you have the hang of it and become experienced at single selection, dedicating the time to actually doing that, you become better in battle, and I think they should be awarded.

I mostly agree with this, but I hold the view that buildings should have hotkeys as well, such as AoE. Also, it would force more people to know how to use the shift+f1 function and go to buildings quickly. I think there are places game makers should cut slack, and this is one of them.

I'm almost on the opposite side on this argument, instead of artificial barriers, I see good realism. No one expects one commander to command 300 units by himself, therefore I believe the unit selection limit should remain low, that and prevent auto fighting. Once again, this is another one of my lesser complaints derived from the major ones, if a company can make a game that holds a strong battle system and good strategy in war, I can see infinite selection.

I also play a lot of MMORPGs, in fact I play everything... anyways, it's not really strategy to me if you can get into a rocking chair and take periodic naps during a game. If a MMORTS ever comes out, obviously things will have to change dramatically for the vast map sizes and many creeps and such.

I agree that size should fit the game, but lately I've seen so many huge huge huge huge huge units that can't dodge any AoE (i.e. Area of Effect opposed to my first AoE, Age of Empires) attacks even though they're supposed to be 'light infantry' or 'light calvary' or 'light anything'.

I'm not saying make workers total morons, but they should be so smart that they path find so well shift+move is useless, this includes workers avoiding enemy bases by themselves! which I have seen. Just because moving workers aren't fun, doesn't mean it should be taken out. Dieing sucks, lets make every unit unkillable.... yeah. Pros set rally points and knows use shift+f1~5 and works fast to get to worker, set him, and get back to the battle with another function key.

I will never say starcraft or blizzard is perfect, but the line between the dedicated and clueless is constantly and fragrantly being blurred to the point where there is a obvious way to win every battle. (DoW and the dreadnoughts, if you've played DoW, you know exactly what I'm talking about)


@Unentschieden
A 10 year old UI sucks less than a 30 year old UI that would rather touch his keyboard than a girl's... well you know. The time pressure and "easy as possible" comments draw dangerous lines. How easy is too easy? From what I've had to endure lately, they danced all over the too easy line making it not accessible, but everyone is on the same level forEVER!

Once again, not for completely stupid AI, I'm for limited AI and actual human involvement with noticeable differences in skill level. This lets recreational players improve their skills, and let the pros have something to work at, therefore allowing rec. players to watch pro players do what they do.

 

I´m against a AI that makes desicions for me. The Games difficulty should come from your opponent not the game.
Example: 10 Ghosts are > 10 Carrriers because of Lockdown. But actually 10 Ghosts <10 Carriers since you can´t micro the Lockdown ability properly. Yes that is "skill" but the wrong kind. I´d rather have it that 10 Ghosts <10 Carriers because a Mind controlled Science Vessel casted EMP on them.
I mean that the mechanical act of Tactics should be easier while the impact of these Tactics rise. It may seem like "easier" tactics should be weaker, but then the game would become boring.
It may rise the tension to avoid mistakes but on the other hand there is less mistake potentional thanks to the improved UI. There would be significant Human involvement but it would be fighting the Enemy not the interface.
(All units were used as example, please don´t try to shoot it down anyway)

 

(All units were used as example, please don´t try to shoot it down anyway)

...you don't want me to argue against you? wouldn't that kind of take away the point out of a forum?

 

You can argue against me but not by using something like: But ghost... and Carriers are...

I´ll try another examle: Stalkers are < Tanks unless Blink is utilized. Then Stalkers > Tanks. But assuming the old UI you could only blink one Stalker at a Time, making Stalkers < Tanks again unless your APM is over 150. It is just a example I don´t want to discuss the units I used for it but the Principle behind it.