I disagree. RTS is an inherently inaccessible genre. It's not something you can just pick up and play.
Which is exactly the problem. Even though I've played dozens of RTS games it's usually a real mission to pick up a new one, largely because not enough focus is placed upon introducing players to the core concepts. It's also annoying having to micro-manage troops when some basic AI routines would improve things dramatically. You need to hook gamers early on so that they want to stay and learn - if the initial hurdle is too high then you lose a lot of your audience.
It's not about dumbing down the game but about better progressing people from not knowing anything to being proficient. The biggest problem is that skills learned in one RTS game are of little use when it comes to another, so you have to win over people that are already fans of the genre. World In Conflict was just too much for me, whereas Dawn Of War and Age Of Empires were much easier to grasp.
FarCry 2 was able to effectively implement new ideas to the genre - like tracking diamonds, answering your mobile, changing positions in vehicles, dealing with health, unjamming weapons - very effectively by simply introducing them gradually and making common sense decisions. Team Fortress 2 used movies to introduce players to Control Point and Payload, as well as to the individual maps - that didn't diminish the game for more experienced people but gave new users a better idea of what's going on so it doesn't simply go over their head. Obviously that's more difficult for RTS games but that's why it's all the more important to tackle it.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."