I'm happy to discuss RTS design as long as the other person isn't going to try to argue from a position of authority (experience with design, playing, perf, etc.). Because if we're going to go down that route, I think I win that argument.
Instead, I read focus the discussion on two elements: The merits of the argument and the axioms (context) that it is being discussed in.
Strategic Zoom background
Now, as I'm arguably the person who invented strategic zoom (i.e. GalCiv II was the first actual game to ship it) I think I am well versed in the pros and cons of it. I would also argue that Sins of a Solar Empire implements strategic zoom a lot better than Supreme Commander does.
The strategic zoom we implemented in Elemental was the first time a fantasy game got it as well (and since then, most of the newer 4X fantasy games have adopted our system right down to representing units as pewter pieces but I digress).
The reason I bring these elements up is to serve as my bonafides that I am obviously pro strategic zoom in general.
Physics based projectiles
I think there is a lot of misconception on what Supreme Commander did and didn't do. When I say a shot in Ashes is a real projectile I mean that literally, it might as well be a unit on its own. It has its own model, light source, physical behavior. It's not just about firing arcs. Units won't just shoot into the side of a hill because every single unit has multiple fire systems with their own firing solutions. So now, what we're doing isn't "old" news. It's never been done before in an RTS. Total Anniihiation actually was somewhat more advanced than Supreme Commander btw.
Managing the order of battle
While Ashes will have thousands of units, players aren't supposed to play the game as a "mob the opponent with unit spam". Newbie players will certainly do this and they will complain that this is what they feel like they have to do. But what experienced players will do is create battle groups (meta units) which, in military terms, are essentially divisions.
When you select one unit in a battle group, they're all selected. They all know about each other. They work like a single unit (ala Kohan). They move as a cohesive force. It's not a big death march of stragglers. A big map might only have a dozen of these units. So when players say they don't understand how they'll be able to control the battle that's because they're thinking of thousands of units that they personally have to micro manage. They don't any more than a...supreme commander has to order individual soldiers where to go.
In Ashes, you actually are the supreme commander in the literal sense. You have Generals and Colonels (General for a 3 tier battle group, a colonel for a 2 tier). You select your units, hit the Z key and boom, you hve a battle group. That battle group is ONE unit.
When someone tries to focus fire on a unit in a battle group, the other units provide cover (abstractly) resulting in them being unable to focus fire on a particular unit. By contrast, an individual unit (i.e. if someone chooses to just form a blob of units and do a hot key) the enemy with a battle group will be able to annihilate them.
On the mini map, that battle group is all you will need to deal with. Select it, and it wherever on the map and it does its thing. Individual units will show up still as little dots of course as a reminder that they're not assigned to anything.
If you've ever played Company of Heroes, you will also get an idea of how the UI for battle groups will eventually work. Select your group, right click and drag to control which way it's facing when you send it to a position.
1.0 vs. evolution
When 1.0 comes out, Ashes won't be nearly as refined as FA was. There are a lot of niceties that require time and experience. So for example, multi monitor support so that a strategic map can be placed there is somethign I'd like.
There will be endless numbers of refinement that the game will receive over time of course based on feedback of the people who buy the game.