So Taros posted quite a bit in another topic regarding these topics and I thought it would make a nice discussion on its own.
I'd like to present a few definitions to help clarify the discussion first. Feel free to disagree, but I figure even if you think I define something poorly at least you know what I mean when I say them...
Strategy
is specifically referred to as a long term or 'broad scope' set of decisions. For example, in almost any RTS you need to make the decision immediately to begin producing military units, or invest the same resources into increasing your economic production, that is a 'Strategic' decision. Whether you should invest in a certain type of combat unit, whether you should move and deploy an army or fleet to a particular place on the map are all examples of strategic choices.
"My strategy is to invest in my economy so heavily that I win by attrition with basic units"
"My strategy is to invest in my economy, but to produce effective units and micro-manage them to achieve victories"
Tactics
Tactics usually refers to the specific methods for executing a strategy. For example, in the case of a heavy economic strategy, an individual tactic used might be the constant production of economic providing structures or units (as opposed to stopping at any point in time). Another example would say, be making sure to keep your long ranged units behind other units who have more health and melee attacks (such as in the Total War Games). These are tactics.
Macro-Management
Generally this refers to the specific set of tactics/execution of an economic based strategy. IE, how fast are you expanding your economy? How much infrastructure are you producing, as well as researching upgrades, managing rally points for new forces, etc.
Micro-Management
The specific tactics involving the moving, positioning, and ability usage of varying units. For example, in SOASE it is a good idea to have your missile frigates target enemy fortifications at long range, while using short range vessels to attack civilian structures out of the range of said defenses. Alternatively, instead of having siege frigates clump up and attack a planet, spreading them out, so that an enemy squadron has difficulty attack all of them in quick succession and is forced to move in-between killing frigates. (Which will buy time for others to escape or reinforcements to arrive, etc.).
Now all that being said, every RTS, I've ever played has these mechanics at work to some degree or another. But some have different focuses. For example:
Supreme Commander has a great focus on economics and Macro Management, virtually no units have any abilities to use, so Micro-Management is only in unit positioning, targeting, focus firing.
SOASE has a very diverse focus, and arguably is about as 'even tempered' as you can get. There are numerous abilities, and while some can turn the tide in battle, a economic victory with attrition and zero micro management is certainly possible.
Starcraft 2 has a strong Micro-Management focus, and after the initial skill levels of play, is really required to one extent or another in order to win, as well as focusing on Macro-Management. Arguably Macro-Management is more important, but easier to learn, and Micro-Management is what gives one player the advantage when evenly matched otherwise.
From what I can tell Gemini Wars will follow Supreme Commander, but has some more interesting dynamics to combat, so while ability usage is non existent, the positioning of ships and focus firing will matter, and ship-boarding adds a nice dimension, and then the tactical/strategic elements of the different forms of movement will like make things interesting as well. Personally while I love Supreme Commander, actually commanding most units is rather tedious and your time is better spent increasing your economy and building super weapons.
I wanted to bring this all up, because I saw some pretty disparaging remarks regarding Starcraft 2, and I found it really interesting because not too long ago I felt the exact same way. I've kind of accidentally gotten good at Starcraft 2... by virtue of it being the only game I can consistently get going after work with friends almost every weekday. I'm no grand master or anything, but I'm a low-level diamond player or high level Platinum player in team games (bronze<Silver<Gold<Platinum<Diamond<Etc.). So I'm not bad.
(Note: Team games generally considered less competitive than 1v1)
I used to pretty much hate the game... I'm certainly really, really pissed off that they have NOT innovated whatsoever (they try to tell you that destructible rock/terrain is innovative when games have had that before Starcraft 1), new units do not equal innovation or even creativity in a genre so diverse. I also generally don't like that the game can be won handedly in the first 7 minutes flat! Its very frustrating at times. I used to not think that Stracraft really had much tactics, and that numbers won games (Macro), but on the other hand, I would think... "damnit these people I'm fighting are just ridiculous clickers!!!" because I could have a much larger army crushed by a couple of spells performed from a unit or two on a cliff I couldn't see.
I was wrong though. For all its lack of creativity, SC2 has strategy (Choosing a heavy econ, choosing certain units, choosing army placement on the map) and tactics (using abilities at the right time, placing units in the right area, moving units properly) and there is definitely a rocks/paper/scissors aspect, but that doesn't mean there isn't strategy (if he has the right units to fight you, then don't fight his units, run reassess/re-purpose factory production, use your units to lead him on goose chases or attack his unprotected areas, Buy some time!). There is a strategy and tactics to knowing what your enemy has, is hiding, or is building and preparing for that.
Macro-Management is more important than micro... but ultimately Macro-Management is pretty easy to learn and the battles are won in Micro terms the higher up you go in level... but you have to lose and win about 100 games (or more!) to even get close to there. I find allot of people think that even if they have the right unit match up, the other guy has more and they lose and they think the game has no micro or some-such, the reality is more likely that your enemy, realizing he was facing a tough fight, moved units properly and focus-fired which decreased the opposing side's DPS during the whole fight, and the other side did not, thus he ends with a large army badly wounded, but still dishing out attacks fairly evenly the whole way through. The only game where this isn't very effective ALL the TIME is SOASE because of Shield Mitigation rules. This really means there is more tactics not less, because in many games the size of the units and the terrain impacts how many can be firing at once, meaning that you can't just attack-move forward and focus fire and expect it to work, you have to get the right positioning too.
So I guess my point is, I'm happy to defend Starcraft 2 and similar games as having some incredible depth and strategy, even how you move a single marine has an impact on the game. BUT I am very happy to admit, that Starcraft 2 is uncreative product, that it is much too fast paced for the average person to get really good at, and that it also is not even very fun... least not for allot of people!
But I don't understand why a game with such a heavy emphasis on Micro-Management gets criticized as being a game of attrition, it is and it isn't, Supreme Commander is a game of attrition to a much greater extent, with virtually limitless resources and units to throw away simply because you can. Games with limited resources forces a player to be more tactical and not less because you need to 'Husband your forces" IE be careful! SOASE is a neat in-between because the capital ships have a certain 'rarity' that makes them worth saving at most costs (because they level and there is a very tight cap on how many you can have at once), while individual units are not; due to infinite resource accumulation (your planets never run out of credits to give you, your asteroids never run out of metal/crystal).
So really... don't say that these games don't have strategy, depth/etc... just make the argument that they are not actually enjoyable to play! Because I can totally agree with that, why on earth should I lose a game because I mis-clicked a few worker units? Or because my little workers were not able to surround enemy zerglings and destroy them quickly enough...
certainly I would be happier if an average game was decided at the 25 minute mark (or later) and not the 6-8 minute mark... but hey... that is why I will buy Gemini Wars and get everyone I know to get it, right?