Personally, I've found RTwP combat to require far more babysitting with groups, sometimes to the point of not even being able to control my main character in combat, as I needed to control the archer/mage to keep them from wasting resources or making poor targeting decisions.
I made this point on another forum, and think it is very relevant here. I think a big part of why we all have such huge differences in our combat system preferences has to do with our differences in combat gameplay styles. I think this is what @etonbears was trying to get at, and he was not trying to put down anyone. Certainly that's not my intent here either.
I think whether we like the spellcasting side of combat or the melee side of combat is what makes a huge difference. If one strongly prefers the spellcasting side, then yes, micromanaging (i.e. babysitting) a spellcaster-heavy party can be very demanding, especially in RT/RTwP systems. And by contrast, spellcasting becomes so much easier and more efficient with turns. On the other hand, if one prefers melee combat, then micromanaging a melee-heavy party is not that difficult, and is quite easy and FUN in a RTwP system.
For me, I have always MUCH preferred the melee side over the spellcasting side. My most favorite class to play in D&D is the fighter class, multiclassed with some other complimentary class such as rogue or ranger or barbarian (but NOT a spellcasting class). The same for my party companions, where I typically avoid taking along companions who are strictly spellcasters. I don't mind having some spellcasting ability in my party, especially for healing, but only as a secondary class of a multiclassed character. So every "spellcaster" in my party will primarily be using a ranged missile weapon, and only resort to casting spells very occasionally.
These differences in our combat gameplay style preferences, I think, go a great way in explaining our differences in our combat system preferences.
