[halflings]

> in starcraft, most "strategies" are heavily scripted build orders that almost never deviate from a handful of openings (similar to opening moves in chess) and a large amount of winning comes from the ability to quickly give orders to your troops ("micro")

As somebody who plays StarCraft casually (gold/low plat in ladder), this is not true. It's even less true for pro players. The level of strategy in StarCraft is impressive, it's really hard to guess in which direction games will go when two very good players are playing against each other.

Sure, perfect execution when it comes to one strategy (say, mech-heavy Terran) will give you the largest advantage against your opponent, but failing to scout appropriately and guess what your opponent is up to means your strategy is dead. You also have to decide when to attack, how much you're willing to sacrifice to damage somebody's economy, when you want to focus one economy vs building units, ...

The video you sent with zerglings is a gimmick made for fun (it's a hard-coded AI using the siege tank's aim logic to divert zerglings from that). That would not win you a game. (because most likely a pro Terran would have destroyed your base before that)

[fizx]

I wonder how far you'd get with a bot that macros perfectly but also A-moves 2-3 groups.

[halflings]

What does "macro perfectly" mean? If it does the same strategy over and over, you just scout, find its strategy, and go for the counter. Its macro will be useless if it has the wrong type of unit.

In a way, the built-in AIs "macro perfectly", but they are terrible at strategy and fighting (because even fights are not just a matter of gimmicks, you need to split units in a special way, send diversions, attack at the same time from multiple fronts, etc.)