>Second, nothing useful taught by religion actually requires religion itself.
This hinges very much on your definition of "useful;" if you don't believe in God or the resurrection of the dead, then talk concerning them is of course pointless. But if you do, they are very useful indeed.
This (or, the experience you're looking for) is available now, by using compositions more suited to it and adjusting your play, but it does require departing from the meta (which I agree is over-focused on micro).
It tends to mean more: splash damage, retreating, turtling, bigger units, expanding, scouting, moving along side lanes. All of these work to get you more for your clicks.
There is a very real sense in which you can shrink your pool of tactics to those with "good UI", allowing you to play more abstractly, similarly to how you'd want expressiveness in a programming language. If you treat your strategic plan as an engineering solution, and then try to reduce moving parts and possible failure points...turns out that is in fact possible.
Retreating, for instance, is a much simpler (in the Rich Hickey sense) endeavor than attacking. It's just less likely to go wrong---fewer things behind you, simple movement rather than dismantling a defense, etc. Doesn't mean you should never attack, just that you should appropriately cost complexity when weighing your strategic options.
Splash damage lets you work on an area level rather than a unit level---another source of abstraction.
Expanding tends to give huge benefits per click compared to other things, and lets you afford bigger units which require less micro.
This doesn't come for free, you do have to play more conservatively and think outside the box ("moving along side lanes" is how you get space for free, which we are quite profligate about sacrificing when we retreat), but it's very possible.
I certainly sympathize, but I'm not sure what this has to do with land tax. If cities can't efficiently provide infra to certain building patterns, they should either reduce their guarantees ("You can build there, but you'll have to lay down wire yourself"), or prohibit building differently. Both seem compatible with an LVT.
Eh...you won't find a nicer guy than Charles Murray, or less of a Stormfront nazi than Curtis Yarvin, but both are basically unmentionable. In both cases no one objects to their presentation, but to their (alleged) material.