If starcraft was such a complicated game, why would players want to INCREASE the micromanagement aspect? It's laughable when people say the split-second decisions starcraft players make are "strategic". Pulling vultures back and then telling them to fire, then pulling back, etc is not strategic. It's an arcade. Same with building 1 marine in 5 different factories instead of having an AUTO-BUILD function.
It's called "micro", not "strategic". It's kinda hard to argue with someone who doesn't know such basics of the basics.
Who exactly wants more micro? Some nonames on a forum? Just about any gaming forum is full of such loud-mouth complainers. Blizzard doesn't listen to such players and they're lessening micro requirments for Starcraft II so it's irrelevant.
Neither go nor chess have these redundancies, yet starcraft players clamour for more! You see, in strategy games, you think a lot and make few moves. In starcraft it's the exact opposite.
Of course you have them in chess and especially in go. You don't change your strategy every time you move some pawn in chess. That's exactly the same micro, you're making many moves per one strategic decision.
More so, you said "strategy games", without specifics, and on a computer-related forum. That was a HUGE mistake on your part. Most Starcraft matches end in 20-25 minutes. If you'll try to start a multiplayer game in most computer strategy games (especially TBS), you'll need hours and hours. Most likely dozens of hours. That's because most computer TBS require MORE micro than Starcraft, not less. There are exceptions like Spectromancer (something like MtG redesigned for online play), but you'll be swamped by micro if you'll try to play Civilization, Europa universalis, Total War series or even most wargames.
I even have two friends who are B players on team liquid and I used to watch tons of starcraft games.
So? I won several Starcraft tournaments and i had a friend who was a 2nd best player in Russia. And i knew most other top players in Russia at that moment.
Now I play forged alliance, a game with a much more advanced UI where there are actually more than just 2-3 ways to counter something and the game designers do not limit your economic development (which makes every moment in the midgame crucial since you could be using your clicks to improve your economy at ANY stage of the game, instead of redundantly moving vultures around like that example in starcraft). In supcom fa, you actually have to concentrate on FOUR OR FIVE battles going on at the same time instead of microing units in a miniscule part of the map.
Give me starcraft with supcom's UI and economy, and I guarantee you I can easily beat even the best starcraft player.
The logical conclusion is that there is a game with SupCom's UI and economy It's SupCom itself Since you can easily beat even the best players in such a game, do you want to say that you're a world champion in SupCom?
Besides, that's the whole point of micro in Starcraft too. You can either control vultures at some point in the game or make more workers or make more units. A relatively advanced concept is that you have "obligatory micro" and "non-obligatory" micro at each moment of the game (i don't remember exact name for such a micro, but i know the concept). Say, you need to order the next upgrade at the very moment previous one finishes. You need to order a worker the very moment your build queue is empty. But you can harass enemy economy with a drop when you don't need to do any obligatory micro. If your enemy has some obligatory micro at the moment you're harassing him, you're merely trading your "attack micro" for his "defence micro" (maybe you gain some micro advantage, maybe you don't), but you're having significant gains over your opponent in "obligatory micro". That gives you economic advantage.