I hear what you're saying Chien, but I still think you make the mistake of heavy generalizing. I'm pretty sure you have a valid point in your observations, but I can't say they represent my views in regards to combat system in games.
It is about generalizing, not personal preferences. It is about determining whether there is a market to support a RTwP party based combat game. It is pointless to developp a game without a market to support it.
Rimworld is one of the now numerous examples showing there is no market for it.
It is light requirements and yet players can not play it RTwP. It exhibited the early access period as conflictual: the dev knew he had a well functioning design and tried to cajole players into playing it as a RTwP game.
It failed, players depend on kill zones. As a result, they are weak as weak when it comes to offensive situations, they do not know how to fight in an open space or establish a pocket to emulate a kill zone.
One incentive is to attack insane rewards to assault situations. Today, Rimworld, hardest difficulty, it is possible to assault a 13 people garrison with 3 pawns and one bear. Half decent proficiency.
On the other side, watching streamers, it is also possible to lose a 4 vs one (three riflemen, one melee unit vs a sub machine gunner), knowing that the duel between a rifleman and SMGer is biased toward the rifleman.
It has nothing to do with speed, the situation took like one minute and half to two minutes to complete. Guy sat on his hands. To conclude it is unfair the enemy has automatic weapons.
UgoIgo, that player wins the encounter every time, RTwP, he ate his teeth.
No clue about using each of his pawns to their strengths.
Not possible to developp a game without gamers to play them.