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...
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.