You say "richer", I say "removes important difficulty". Part of what makes the genre interesting is balancing your attention between these different aspects.
But more importantly, it's critical to an RTS that you can use micro to disrupt enemy resource gathering. If all unit movement is decided on a turn-based world map, you can't sneak around a distracted army to take out a strategic point. Micro still influences who wins a battle, but you have to have a head-on fight. A combat is stuck in one grid cell instead of having access to the entire world.
(The hybrid design can make the macro richer. But troop movement and micro suffer a lot. It's not win/win.)
> you can't sneak around a distracted army to take out a strategic point
Sure you can. In civ for example, sail your fleet one way under fog of war, move your army another to suck in units.
I would argue that sneaking based on "the human playing the video game was focused on something else" is a less compelling dynamic than sneaking based on "real" dynamics.
> Sure you can. In civ for example, sail your fleet one way under fog of war, move your army another to suck in units.
That's not getting around a distracted army.
Even if we ignore player focus, and pretend everyone can multitask perfectly, you're still losing options. You can't engage in a big fight on one side of a map just long enough for a flanking force to hit a critical target, then immediately retreat out of the main fight to avoid losses. With turn-based movement, that big fight is either unnecessary or it's likely to get your army crushed by the non-split-up force from lack of retreat options.
And you can't dodge an intercepting force with most forms of turn-based movement.
You can indeed do what you describe. It is a sometime useful tactic in e.g. quest battles where you can kill a target then withdraw. An uncommon thing to do but generally possible.
But what you seem to describe are tactical operations, so they are happening on a tactical map. Sneaking up a group of units with stalk/forward deployment behind enemy lines then hitting the backline with it in an opportune moment when the main lines are engaging is a staple in a tactical engagement. As are the flanking maneuvers. You might not be hitting the workers or the production buildings but taking out an artillery piece is just as important and satisfying. Cavalry play has alot of the 'dodge the intercepting force' moments, etc.
The high-end TW multiplayer play is not the same and it might not be as difficult as high-end Starcraft play but I have never found the apm requirements and the need to control both macro and micro at the same time an appealing challenge. And the single player campaign is just straight up better because of a sheer variety of what you are doing.
I’d also point out that you can adjust the “speed” of army movement — at least in TW: Warhammer — so that if they’re moving more quickly, like a forced march, they are less likely to spot hidden or sneaking armies. This does leave the mechanic depending on user choice of where to focus, not just ambient fog of war. It at least gives a similar state of mind as in SC where the player says to himself “do I go in with blinders on or do I proceed with more attention to surroundings” with real pros/cons for each.
But more importantly, it's critical to an RTS that you can use micro to disrupt enemy resource gathering. If all unit movement is decided on a turn-based world map, you can't sneak around a distracted army to take out a strategic point. Micro still influences who wins a battle, but you have to have a head-on fight. A combat is stuck in one grid cell instead of having access to the entire world.
(The hybrid design can make the macro richer. But troop movement and micro suffer a lot. It's not win/win.)