First of all I think it is great that you wanted to express your opinion to others. Here is the link
here.
That being said I take issue with this,
"I'm not interested to know that someone, somewhere, had one different game : it's just hiding the very great majority." The way I read it says something like this,
"I'm right and have weighed every aspect of the game and it is not good. Don't bother trying to debate this, you'll be wrong." Thats just the way I read it. There is much I could say about this but I try not to argue with people who don't leave room for other people, either their opinions or their preferences. What's the point?
"Many will disagree, or provide counter points, but frankly, it doesn't change the core of the argument."
From reading the core of your argument is that this game is not strategic, correct?
"Its all about scaling. Exponential scaling. Nothing bright, the one who has the most wins, end of story."
Thats why the countries of the world is afraid of China's military might. But then again there are many "exceptions" where the less powerful overcame the economically superior foe. This happens occasionally in supcom as well, on all ends of the spectrum. I could show you at least a half dozen of these on gamereplays.org. But as it should be, this is hard to pull off because its hard to outwit / maneuver an economically superior foe.
Anyways about the meat of the post, this may not be the game for you.
I find that it is the game for me because I don't like twitch or UBER MICRO games. Sure Dawn of War is great, but I don't want to cause an aneurism by just trying to win a fun game. For me its too Tactical and involves even less strategy. Its a game of who can hard counter the other's forces the quickest while micro'ing every battle? There is also a big difference in game flow from SupCom to the ones you mentioned also, RoN and AoE2. Preference for the speed of play, amongst other things.
About how you claimed that strategic gameplay does not exist in the game. IMO either you're not seeing it or you have a different concept of what strategic means. Building forward factories on open palms is strategic. Trying to hold the middle in Fields of Isis is strategic. Especially trying to maintain air dominance is strategic. Whenever I watch high rated replays I see strategy all over the place. When a commander breaks off a small part of his force, which is headed to the front line conflict, and instead goes outside of the way to hit the mex's and power behind the front lines. If you don't choose to do strategic things with the game, that's not the game's fault. Its still there.
Now there are some maps that are not strategic, but indeed tactical. Winter's Duel, Sentry Point, Theta Passage, and partially Finn's Revenge as well as Salt Rock Colony. These maps are so small that you can't get much more out of them. IMO these maps equate to Dawn of War and Warcraft.
As far as balance goes. Yes there are imbalances, this will always be the case, but they will diminish. Little more than a month has gone by. Not even Blizzard was exempt from the release rule. T3 Siege Bots need to be less of an I-Win button and more expensive to get T3 factory. IMO it was a design choice that was made to let the resources increase at a compounding rate. I'm not sure on whether this was right or not.
As far as your 3 stages, what RTS doesn't fall into that category when you reduce it to 3 phases? Sure but what about scouting? That is a big part of this game along with many other things. Simplifying a description of something does not make it more simple, it just makes the statement less true for the sake of brevity. Not to say that this statement isn't reasonable, it is just less accurate the more you cut out of the equation.
Graushwein