Here's a dirty little secret: real-time strategy games (including Sins, at least the way it is played online) aren't strategy games, they are tactical games. What matters most is "micro," not "macro," and they are all clickfests. Even Sins, which is said by many to be a slow game, is way too much of a tactical clickfest for me. I've watched pro-level Sins players - even being in the same room with them while they are playing. In almost all cases, what matters most isn't any strategic decision-making at all, rather it is their ability to "micro." I literally saw a Sins pro (I was sitting in the same room with him) go into a system with literally a handful of ships (a few skirantras, a marauder, a couple minelayers, and some subverters), and destroy several hundred ships from 2 different players allied against him, and the players allied against him weren't bad players. All he did was micro out the ying yang, and abuse everything for its maximum potential.
Was I impressed? No, I wasn't. I don't think that kind of thing should be "allowed" by a game. By all rights and measures, he should have been utterly crushed. But it was he who utterly crushed.
Most Sins players I know of think that Sins is a strategy game. You can play it that way if you are sitting in your room, playing against the AI. But multiplayer online, Sins is as far from a strategy game as you can get. I differ with Darvin on this point.
As far as the Koreans go, I'd much rather be off banging one of my girlfriends than working on my APM. I could just care less about click speed determining whether I win or lose. Chess isn't about physical speed, why should Sins or any other "strategy" game be?
Well, they're called
real-time strategy games. If you don't like real-time, there are a lot of other options - for instance, Civ V is coming out this September(assuming you're not dissuaded by Steamworks).
With regards to the scenario you mentioned - how were the two attacking players managing their units. Generally, a defeat of that magnitude is the result of poor management from the losers, not some extraordinary feat from the winning side. If the losing side carelessly ran their fleets into mines, all that shows is that they were careless. If their fleets had a glaring deficiency, then they should have used macro - yes, macro - to build a more balanced fleet. And if the winner had a much superior defensive position but less planets, they shouldn't have thrown away their fleet when they could have just waited it out.
And do you really think a game is fun if the outcome is predetermined as soon as one player gains an advantage. There needs to be a way for a player who's behind to come back, and a player who's ahead shouldn't be allowed to get careless without being punished for it. We've all probably seen the AI uselessly lose humongous amounts of units be carelessly throwing them into a starbase - and it should - if managing your units isn't rewarded by the game, why allow it in the first place?
There are numerous aspects to solid play - using recon to know what your opponent is doing, planning your strategy to defend against what your opponent might be doing, then executing your strategy by building the right units and managing them correctly. All of these are core components to being good at real-time strategy. Having a bigger fleet is just part of what you need to win - you also need to counter your opponent's units, maintain a flow of reinforcements, continue upgrades/research, and use your army advantage to keep your opponent on less planets than you. The core issue is that these allies were unprepared for their opponent's fleet, not that they didn't click as fast.
