(pic for later)
>>2056104
First, stop putting words in my mouth.
I made clear it's not about transforming groups of units into lines of text & numbers with no presence.
I made clear it shouldn't be grouping the units then keeping the group just as retarded.
I made clear it's about getting so efficient you might even spare time to see your unit charging.

Giving Supreme Commander and Total War as example.
Those are RTS.
All units in battle exist physically in a 3D space, making them obviously not GSG.
We have plenty of RTS where you attach "leader/unique unit" to groups of units, they aren't GSG either.
And to clarify: I don't care adding any "leader unit", it was just an example, they'll be hotkey 5 anyway.

I can't be hard to imagine because what I describe is closer to reality than how RTS are made right now.
It's a matter of User-Interface, game design ang bringing RTS to the standard we expect todays.

>Just ensure they're active where you need them.
Meaning constantly babysitting them. That. Is. The. Problem.
You cannot have sophisticated strategy game with combined-arms, and use of terrain, elevation, line of sight...etc, because you'd have to micromanage everything they do, from making sure they take a formation where Shield-unit are at the center with anti-air unit inside, to constantly reselecting the group to make them reform every 10 seconds...

If we want to resuscitate RTS we need units with minimal self-preservation, an ability to move as a group without resetting to chaos, while also tracking enemies.

>can have cavalry stacks flank using shift-queued pathing in EU4
Making sure, given what I know of EU4, did you bug and wanted to write TW? Cause that's a TW thing.

As vitriolic as I am with the undead state of RTS, yes TW's UI is already well tailored for large medieval battles.
TW problem remain that they probably consider their AI is smarter than their playerbase (see pic).
Making SP game against NPC boring as fuck