>>2011165
>Again, there is no actual strategy in an rts game and the gameplay should not revolve almost entirely around who has the better economy. If I wanted that garbage I'd play an economy sim
The strategy part of what we call "Real Time Strategy", is mostly on economy, production and population management(things like Warcraft 3 or Age of Empires, has a population cap, so you need to balance between peasants and soldiers) and that is kind of how it is in real life. Wars are won in the supply chains, not on the battle field.
For those who want to go even more in the economy aspect, the Anno series fill that niche.
>>2013400
>Playing with only 1 troop type is totally one dimensional and should lose you the majority of strategy games
It's kind of how most armies functioned, Alexander's army was like 90% hoplites with a small cavalry division, Rome's army was mostly infantry, with cavalry sometimes being outsourced to barbarian mercenaries. If you want to go to something more "recent", in Napoleon's time, it was mostly infantry men with the same rifles, a few canon units and a cavalry unit, but again 80-90% were just these standard infantry men. Sometimes that's how you do it, you just get the best type of unit, have most of your army composed of it, and have the rest fill different niches, like cavalry. Some RTS games, simply reflect that reality, like in Age of Empires 2, where most endgame armies will be mostly their soldiers that they get from the Castle, or some other unit, with a few trebuchets for walls and buildings.
With all that said, it sounds like you would enjoy more the "Real Time Tactics" games, also refereed to as RTT, like Men of War, or just the Total War games, if you want big armies fighting, and the economy takes a back seat. That is if you want real time gameplay, as the examples of good strategy games you provide are turn based games.