Hmm. I think I would say that those definitions are somewhat outside the most typical way that "strategy" is understood (by people who do it professionally, of whom I am not one).
I won't argue; as I said, friendly disagreement is valuable. I hope it's OK, though, if I try to summarize why I see strategy as a particular level of behavior, and thus as a very particular kind of gameplay.
For StarCraft (which I've played more than once and enjoyed, just so it's clear I'm not speaking from a position of mindless hate), I'd say that it's at best an operational-level game. You could, in an extremely loose way, say that a player might have a "strategy" going into a game. I wouldn't freak out about that. But if I'm doing careful analysis, what I think would be more accurate -- and, my goal, better for understanding game design -- would be to say that you're using tactics when you make a momentary decision to zerg an opposing unit or to move to a position from which your next attack can be more effective.
But decisions about how to approach one map are almost purely tactical, even if gathering resources is part of those decisions, because the space and time are so compressed that what's actually being measured is not how deeply you think (which is a strategic function), but how quickly you can think (to adapt to local problems and opportunities). And in an entire game of single-player StarCraft, the lack of the player's ability to choose the maps played means that it is, at best, a tactical-operational game. I would call it a full operational game if some resources carried over between maps, but they don't. So it's mostly an enjoyable series of tactical scenarios.
And there is nothing wrong with that! To say that that StarCraft is a tactical game or an operational game and not a strategic game (because you don't really get to make strategic decisions as described below) is in no way whatsoever a criticism of StarCraft. It's not putting down StarCraft or Blizzard; it's not an insult from which they need to be defended. It's an observation made for the purposes of understanding specific forms of play in a game design context that the kinds of things that are done when you're functioning at a strategic level simply aren't available to you when you play StarCraft.
You can't perceive slowly shifting patterns of massive force across a vast area; you can't command huge numbers of units across multiple fronts simultaneously; you can't develop and order the implementation of multi-operation engagements that take weeks or months of real time to process; and -- because all your decisions must be made in real time, you never have the time that is needed to think on any of those previous things deeply and (one hopes) effectively. A flanking maneuver spanning a small area over a very short span of time is simply a tactic to win an engagement. A sequence of engagements with logistical and possibly psychological support that cover a number of neighboring areas over a moderate span of time, and which are coordinated to achieve a specific form of dominance over those areas, is an operation. And a carefully designed combination of operational actions, utilizing a large number of multi-purpose force-applying groups over a culturally large front spanning weeks or months or even years in real time, and intended to be one of a small number of components of winning an entire war -- that's strategy.
When you say, "I have a strategy for X," what you're saying is that you've imagined or been given a vision of an entire large-scale new ordering of reality (sometimes called "grand strategy"), you have examined the space in which that vision is to be achieved to identify the controlling elements and perceive their changes and movements, and you have developed a plan intended to bring that vision into existence through successfully executing a small set of coordinated very high-level applications of substantial force.
That has virtually nothing to do with any tactical action.
And it definitely isn't the kind of thing any non-savant human can do in real time. Understanding what the changes on the Big Map mean, and designing large-scale movements of personnel and materiel that can effectively counter those changes to the advantage of your vision for how reality should be -- that requires time to think deeply and carefully, because if you're wrong it will be difficult if not impossible to adapt to the significant losses at a cultural level of strategic failure.
(One note on strategy in games: when I talk about "weeks or months or years in real time," that does not mean that's how long it must take in a game! That span of time can be compressed through abstraction, and through game mechanics like the "turn" that give the player enough time to think. That's why "turn-based strategy" is a reasonable genre term.)
I'm running long here, but I'm making an effort to explain why I try hard to use that word "strategic" with precision: if you just make tactical or operational play and call it "strategic," you miss the chance to make truly strategic gameplay. And I think that's a shame, because just as tactical and operational gameplay can be great fun, so can gameplay that really is strategic, that exercises not your quick thinking or logistical thinking, but your deep, pattern-perceiving thinking. We need games that offer that latter kind of fun, too... but making a game that doesn't, and calling it "strategic," doesn't help.
I hope this stuff helped, if anyone managed to plow through it all. Truly, it's not about beating up on a kind of gameplay that a lot of people enjoy. Why would I do that? It's about trying to insure that the folks who enjoy the deep-thinking kind of gameplay get what they enjoy, too.
And to bring it back to the actual subject, fleet command can live somewhere between operations and strategy.
A fleet is probably going to carry out particular operations, broken up into tactical engagements through the individual units of the fleet. But several fleets, especially if they require specialized planning for logistical support over large areas and spans of time... hey, now we're talking strategy!
I can see fleet command as an RTS game (even if that "RTS" term makes me cringe a little inside
). How that might work is worth discussing.
I'm just hoping that Limit Theory also has some provision for managing multiple fleets in a big-picture, whole-civilization kind of way, too... which might be worth discussing in another thread.