Warcraft 2 and 3 really took place is far different settings, though they incorporated the storyline from 2 into 3.
Please explains this to me: how come they are different?
Small unit sizes, micromanagement,
Just FYI, StarCraft is more micro-heavy: at first minutes of the game you have almost the same micro-policy as in War3 -- save units, see that casualties are minor (remember the marine-vs-lurkers trick?). Then, when you amass the forces, and the unit count is much greater than in War3, you have to control all the packs simultaneously, making drops, harrassing, scouting etc. It involves much more micro than controlling than in War3, because there you rarely get more than 2 forces that require *simultaneous* control (i.e., harrassing enemy's expansion, while engaging in fullforce battle somewhere else), and drops are practically nonexistant (except for some maps) in war3 (too bad, actually). Well, of course, you can play StarCraft without much microcontrol skills, but you wouldn't last long versus a professional gamer that way.
And for the replays. I really wish there were good Human players. But the only time I remember seeing a Human player in one of the championship replays, he got beat pretty easily.
Well, first of all, one tournament is not a full picture. But yes, humans are a bit underpowered in this patch (in some previous patches humans were the strongest, btw, esp. in the end of war3classic). There are some good humans out there (INsomnia, Swain, Rainbow etc), and it's sure possible to win a big tourney playing human, since even despite the evident imbalance, the primary factor is player's skill, not his race, and I think that's a great success of the latest patches (in war3classic race was dominant over skill).
WEll, tastes differ. Maybe if I was only a spectator I would get bored, too, but I did play WC3 very extensively, participating in numerous tourneys, and I was *struggling* to become bored, because my career outside gaming depended on that!
Battle should be logistics and strategy
Yes, it should. And it is.
Logistics is there. Esepcailly since the units are so important to keep alive, and that even a single fullforce skirmish can pretty much decide the game is a *VERY* important factor that encourages players to be very strategic, constantly thinking about *when* and *where* it is better to engage in battle, and that's core strategical aspect. Also, despite the concept being hero-centric, there are numerous instances of multi-force (albeit usually no more than 2-3) simultaneous combat, harassment and whatnot. Btw, hero-harassment is another great feature of warcraft. For instance, creepjacking is always fun (both for player and observer) to see in action.
Plus, the core-aspect, just as in StarCraft, is the unit-countering -- that is, knowing what your enemy uses, and reacting to that accordingly. That's why you can't say that *all* battles are done with the same set of units all the time.
By the way, why do the night elves call themselves the night elves?
WEll, night elves have their own language, and they have a word that they refer to themselves with, but I forgot it.
