I don't understand why Starcraft has such a big "Pro" scene compared to other RTS games, many of which are more sophisticated (e.g Total Annihilation/Supreme Commander).
Most of my experience playing Starcraft (the original) online was that the winner tended to be the one who could spam the most units out of the gate rather than any particular strategical cleverness.
~~~
- Good mechanics and multitasking
This is your ability to have your units do what you want. You want unit X to go to place Y, you are quickly able to give that command, without taking up much of your attention. You're also able to simultaneously build units, advance your build at home, harass your opponent, reposition units, look at the minimap, and micromanage where necessary. Top players can have more than 5 actions per second average.
- Good micromanagement and tactical skill
For example, your ability to spread your units to take less damage from area of effect spells, focus fire on the most important enemy targets to get them down faster, your ability to position your units for flanking, to keep a scouting unit alive while being chased, etc. Maximizing the effectiveness of individual units.
- Good macromanagement and strategical skill
Your ability to advance your build at home correctly (what most effectively counters the opponent), to spend all your resources and not have it stack up in the bank, to choose the correct timings for expanding across the map or amassing an army, and to anticipate your army composition for what your opponent will do.
~~~
If you expect to be playing a game of chess, you'll be far behind even in the first few minutes. Your opponent's scouting unit micromanages and interrupts your build without your being able to kill even the scouting unit, and while your concentration is on the harassing unit, your opponent, who can multitask, executes his build perfectly.
Without a base level of competence mechanically (which in starcraft is about 2 effective actions per second) you cannot even compete strategically.
All three of these areas impress viewers which makes for a very 'spectatable' game.
Good mechanics and multitasking are evident when, after you've watched a battle, you can see how many more units the top player has been able to produce - while he was simultaneously micromanaging his units in battle.
Micromanagement, at least in starcraft, is very fun to watch. You can see the small army outmanoeuvre the larger enemy by individual control of units - it's hard to explain why it is impressive in just words, but the joy of watching good micromanagement is a core feature of spectating starcraft games. Watch for example here, how the player's marines dodges the spines while he keeps shooting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQtPMLOctBg
Starcraft has a lot of 'soft counters' - units that counter other units but not completely. The focus on soft counters rather than hard counters gives players a lot of strategic freedom. Even if one player's units are countered, he can micromanage them and come out ahead. Or, for example, a player can take a risky early expansion to extra resources and rely on micromanagement of his few units to stay alive.
Finally, since the maps that people play on do change, it takes a while to find the optimal builds, so you do see a lot of really innovative strategic play that people love to watch. I really cannot give any examples on this without explaining many more details about the game. I am interested to hear why you think Total Annihilation would have more sophistication.
I must admit I haven't played many other games, but I have heard people complain that either the micromanagement or the multitasking aspect are not as much on the foreground in other games, and the combination of strategy + intense multitasking + micromanagement has kept starcraft exciting for both players and viewers.
I would say that games like TA/Sup Com would seem more "strategical" since they tend to be bigger in the sense that they have bigger maps and bigger , more complex tech trees. You also have more options in terms of setting up queues and automated behaviours for units (patrolling,ferrying etc) which means that you don't have to worry about revisiting your base as often because you have already queued up everything you want built for the next 5-10 minutes. It also allows options such as going into a resource deficit to produce units you cannot afford (but will be built more slowly).
I suppose this could be said to reduce the importance of the "micromanagement" aspects of the game (although these can still be important) but I'm not sure if this is necessarily a bad thing in itself. Professional SC looks to me more like it is being played on the basis of quick reflexes and drilling build orders quickly in a sense closer to an action game where you control a lot of units rather than "strategy" as such, perhaps tactics is a better word.
To me it would seem that as technology advances strategy games should become less about micromanagement, since in a real war the General does not usually micromanage the actions of individual soldiers on the scale of "move left, now fire you gun" etc. Of course a general may make high level decisions such as how to train their soldiers which will affect how they behave in the field etc and this could be simulated with AI.
That's a naive view. Flash, the best Starcraft player ever, was not known for being a particularly fast player. What makes him so good is his decision making. It's not just how fast you play, but WHAT you spend your limited attention on that separates a champion/pro-player from your average top-tier player. Also, the fast-paced nature of Starcraft is incredibly engaging for the viewers--there's always something to focus on, from the large big battles, to a small harassment play, to armies simply jockeying for position.
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014488/The-Game-Design-of-STAR...
One of the things he mentions about SC1, if I remember correctly is the limited number of units. If the possible composition of your army increases, more ways of using the army becomes available. This becomes a detriment because players spend more time exploring composition than actual strategy.
With regard to your point about automating behaviour, I think this is a more philosophical question. How much automation should an RTS have/allow? Given SC1's history as a mechanically intensive game, SC2 attempted to lower the basic skill level needed to reach a broader audience, but this demand is in constant struggle with the professional level of SC2.
On micromanagement, the SC2 community seems to regard this as the easiest way for an e-sports/SC2 newcomer to identify skill. Long-term strategies and the steps/timings that go into setting them up are fairly guarded secrets among professional players. While some can be particularly obvious, building a specific army at a specific time for a specific reason can be difficult to explain to a newcomer.
SC2 and SC1 certainly do not reflect a "real war," because experience seems to indicate an e-sports RTS requires elements that would not belong in a "real war." I think this is a philosophical decision and you might disagree with it. SC2 was an attempt to capture the popularity of SC1 for a broader audience, not just S. Korea. To do so, the developers attempted to incorporate the aspects that they thought would be most popular both to play and to watch.
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014488/The-Game-Design-of-STAR...
I think people just like watching high APM.