avoiding micro-management

Look at the thread I posted in regards to a build-able AI- Sub commander. I discussed it in the unit idea post on page three... I like the idea of an automated unit....

The innate intelligence level of the supplemental commander AI is based on several factors such as map size number of players and intelligence level of any present opponent Ai's

The commander would have (as suggested) a toggle-able range of action and desired action type... i.e. offensive, defensive base building (turrets and other fortification..) econ etc..... you get the idea.. When you select the area and action type the sub-commander will be able to control units within that range to assist in it's established function.. The ranges and behavior can be changed toggled on and off all through the Sub-commander... and it also provides a distinct target/ focal point to direct your attacks and knock out the local automated control... in my thread i discuss balance more in depth

https://forums.uberent.com/threads/supplemental-commanders-using-ai.51009/#post-780343

Even though I like the sentiment of an adaptive learning AI playing the game by your side I think that an RTS is generally too complex for the AI of today. It would be much more likely to be an obstruction than an assistant.
Automated behaviour have to be easily understandable and controllable.
The point of automated behaviour IMO is to make the player able to perform high level decisions while keeping certain tactics balanced and viable as the scope of the game increases.
Kiting for example is an easily automated task that allows the player the choice of kiting, rushing forward or retreating from an enemy without straining the player with obsessive micromanagement.

I'd just like to add, as a decades-long player of 4X games stretching all the way back to the Stellar Conquest board game, that I have yet to see even one 4X (and esp. not RTS) game get the micromanagement aspect right. Games may be playable at a small scale - on small maps and/or low numbers of units - but as the scale of games increases the micromanagement also scales geometrically, leading to very nonstrategic strategy games. I have a habit of always choosing the most epic conditions allowed in games, and I have always been disappointed at how little time I get to consider actual strategy and how many countless hours I spend pushing endless units around and issuing the same orders ad nauseum.

Of course in the early stages of a game one wants to be able to micromanage even the tiniest detail to ensure that one's Grand Plan gets off on a solid footing, but as the game progresses and the complexity increases you as emperor/general have a growing hierarchy under you to which all those tasks would now be delegated. As the game progresses, you as a single leader would be forced by practical limits of your time to focus increasingly on the Big Picture and progressively delegate more and more finicky little details to your trusted minions.

In other words, the degree to which the game abstracts details should increase with the scale/scope of the game. This parallels physical reality. It's obviously not trivial or it would have been done 20 years ago, but the perfect 4X/RTS game needs to get this right. In my opinion it's the single most important playability factor for such games, and thus far every single developer has failed to nail it. Many have added varying degrees of abstraction, to be sure, but the abstraction is always fixed and none figured out how to make it scale with the game.

Will this game have an upper scale that warrants this attention? From what little I have tinkered with the game thus far it's unclear, but if it does then I hope this issue will get the attention it has so long deserved.