Strategy is a plan.
Micro is an execution of this plan.
This thread is weird.
When discussing an RTS, "strategy" generally refers to a player's execution of a gameplan on a macro scale (building the correct units at the correct times, efficiently spending resources, upgrading at correct timings, etc.), and "micro" generally refers to a player's execution of a gameplan on a micro scale (positioning units correctly, focusing the proper targets, utilizing the units you have created in the correct manner, etc.).
All RTS games require a combination of these two elements. A game like SC2 puts a ton of emphasis on the strategy/macro element; it requires insane micro as well, of course, but at high levels of play those with better macro skills are generally more successful because they can draw games out longer, and a longer game generally favours the more mechanically-sound player because there are more decisions to be made and therefore more opportunities to outplay the opposing player.
On the other end of the spectrum are games like Men of War and DoW2 and CoH2, where the macro elements of the game are, relatively speaking, incredibly simplistic. When you have a simple game on a macro scale, it's far easier to outplay your opponent on the micro scale because that's the arena where you can differentiate yourself the most. When the strategic, macro element of the game is relatively easy to master, high-level games are decided on the precision of a player's micro capabilities. Somewhere in the middle of these two extremes lies vCoH, which emphasized micro but did so to a far lesser degree than CoH2, and left room for macro players but rewarded them to a far lesser degree than SC2.
You can't really make a value judgement about the two styles without it being an extremely subjective one. Some people like the SC2 style, some people like the CoH2/DoW2/MoW style. vCoH was unique because it bridged the gap between the two fairly well, and catered a little bit to both styles of players.
Commenting more directly at the OP, which I didn't get a chance to do in my first post, I don't really think CoH2 becoming more APM-intensive is a bad thing. Company of Heroes has always been an extremely easy series to play from an APM perspective; forcing top players to play faster is not a bad thing. It's not difficult to learn to play faster, and I don't think increasing the APM requirement means CoH2 suddenly has more focus on micro and less on strategy. That shift in focus has been there since the game's release, and it's caused more by the design of the factions and the layout of the tech trees than any increase in required actions during a game.