"Not Starcraft 2 of coarse... But with move support Starcraft 1 would not be a bad Idea as the move can work like a mouse in some ways.."

Lawl? Have you played Starcraft 1? You have to be even faster than in Starcraft 2, because of things like no rally points, manually mining workers, no shift-que for building, no smart-casting AI, ect.

"Ruse works well with move... I think starcraft would too"

And Ruse is a LOT slower than Starcraft 2, let alone 1. Seriously, I average right now about 80-90 APM (actions per minute) in Starcraft 2. I really don't see how I could possibly do that with Move. The game relies on hotkeys VERY heavily. As in, any game I play I'll at the very least be binding about 6 numbers on my keyboard to my army and production buildings.

I can be building units, researching, and base managing while not even looking at my base: I'll hit
Zerg: 5stttttzzzz 4v *hold shift* *click on tiny squares on minimap* 6 *tab tab tab* b *tab* a
Terran: 4sssse 5aaaaddd *tab* ss *tab* ddvvr 6s *tab* y
Protoss: ws *spam click to warp units* wt *same thing* 4eeeec 5cc 6t *tab* s
all in a matter of less than 5 or so seconds. Try doing that with move.

Microing would be really hard. Especially a kind called *kiting*, where you right click somewhere, hit h, then right click again, repeat, to take advantage of a range difference. Oh, all this while managing a base like said above.

I think you see where this is going by now. Starcraft 2 was made to be an extremely fast paced game for keyboard and mouse.

.
http://www.youtube.com/watc... watch in 720p

no PS3.wii or 360 Everything else console can have :)

Wait...

The PS3 or 360 could handle that, easily.

Why would it have to be dumbed down at all? Technically there's nothing near tough enough to make the PS3 struggle and you can have keyboard and mouse controls on the PS3 too so jusy why would it HAVE to mean dumbing down just to have it on the PS3? No, if they dumbed it down it would be the devs own choice and NOT a necessity.

If they chose to make it controller friendly then, sure, it risks a big dumbing down but, as I said, PS3 supports keyboard and mouse(and why not keyboard and Move maybe? Just a thought, IDK if it would or could work but I'm sure it could be used in a clever way to aid console use)so there's absolutely ZERO need for it to be dumbed down whatsoever-unless the developer thinks that's best for them and the platform. Anyway, there HAS to be a halfway house somewhere, doesn't there? Having said that RTS bore me stupid and always have(just don't see the attraction-same with MMOs of every damn kind right now-maybe one day I'll find one I quite like)so what do I care? Seriously?

I don't think I'm alone either and reckon 90% of people who like RTS AND own a console will also own a decent PC and already prefer playing their RTS games on their rig in any case. Is there ANYTHING LIKE a big enough market on consoles for a big RTS? Halo Wars sold well but I think much of that was Halo name curiosity(and even a few who DID purely just buy because it said Halo on the boxes) with people eager to see if they :a, Liked an RTS after being Halo fans or, b, liked Halo's universe and wanted to see if RTS would work as well as FPS there. Point being I doubt many were ready to start playing all, or most, of their RTS games on console even IF they were staying with that genre. So, is RTS worth chasing on consoles anyhow?

I can see Civ working well anywhere witrh simple mods but we already knew that and it's an odd game for an RTS anyway. Outside of that how many really work? Ruse maybe? Endwar? Nope. Halo Wars? Kinda. I think it's nearly a dead horse.