I don't have a problem with RTS games in general (except the ones with actual timed missions), but I get it. If you think those are bad try playing their multiplayer games. I tried an online game of C&C Red Alert 2 back when it came out (2000?) and the game started and I literally built two buildings and got swarmed by an army. I don't know how in the hell they built things that quick, but I was like "This is not for me..."
I played some multiplayer RTS against buddies of mine back in the 90s, but we weren't super competitive and it was mostly just screwing around. I wouldn't get involved in stuff like the Starcraft scene. No thanks.
I don't mind RTS where I can pause and issue orders, but it just seems...I dunno...dumb to me. And certain games have a TON of micromanagement, like the Dawn of War games. I just find that incredibly tedious.
Originally, RTS games were cool because (a) they were new, (b) they were a different kind of challenge, and (c) they were meant to kind of replicate the pace of an actual battlefield. The sense was that you as the general were having to manage your troops in real-time just like you would normally.
Back then, you had to micromanage your troops because AI wasn't sophisticated enough to figure out what to do on its own. So you had to order troops everywhere, and tell them which targets to attack. They'd defend themselves generally, but they wouldn't do other stuff unless you told them to. This made sense in, say, 1996 because our computers weren't nearly powerful enough, but it also established a "style" of RTS that I find idiotic and hidebound. This is the "micro" style where you have to constantly tell your troops "go over here. Stay there and shoot from cover. Use this special ability NOW! Go attack those guys." And apparently, the "skill" of playing an RTS ends up coming in managing your micro effectively and being able to switch back and forth rapidly while hoping your idiot troops can defend themselves before you can switch to them and tell them what to do properly.
I've seen the same thing with real-time-with-pause (RTWP) games in the RPG realm. When Baldur's Gate first introduced the concept, it was an interesting take and made sense as designed because it was 1998 and there were limits to what they could do with the technology. But over TWO DECADES later, a lot of RTWP RPGs are still operating on the Baldur's Gate design approach because....reasons? That's just what people expect when they play an RTWP RPG?
In my opinion, if the point of real-time in gaming is to actually create a more immediate, lifelike experience, then it would also NOT include having to tell your idiot troops "Shoot at this guy or that guy and throw your grenade now." It would, instead, involve a LOT more automation on the part of your troops who would only deviate from their own programming when you told them to do otherwise, but would generally operate in an autonomous manner according to the orders you'd issued or standing orders/behaviors.
I've yet to find RTS games that do that, however.
