1. That's a tricky question (but a good one). The problem you are stating here is more of a design question. My recommendation is to make small changes, test it, then either scrap it or rebalance, repeat. If it's a game changer, like new mechanics, try it on paper first. With this I mean, try it with different play styles. Often than not, they don't fit with the theme of the game, or change it's core principles. For every mayor change, always ask yourself: with this, is it still your game or a completely different one?
2. About the RTS vs Incremental question, we have to first review what those 2 terms mean (my own based opinion).
RTS stands for Real Time Strategy. Note the key word is strategy, not tactics, so you are compelled to have some form of resource management and giving orders to your troops (either by setting objectives or giving direct orders).
On the the other hand, incremental is a more lenient theme, but it's fundamentally based around resource management, with a focus on progression and the limitless accumulation (game saving is a must in this case). Almost all games with some form of sustainable resource management can be played incrementally. Examples of this are:
The Settlers II. In there, except for minerals, stone and fish, and their derivatives, everything else can be accumulated in your headquarters and storage houses ad infinitum.
Age of Empires, where you can get infinite ore with relics and trading, and buy any other resource with it.
Empire Earth, with the market trait. Set up multiple farms and sell the food. Then you can buy everything else.
Command & Conquer. The tiberium regenerates around those "hollow trunks". It's predecessor, Dune is the same with the spice.
Tzar. This classic has a trade form that allows passive accumulation of any resource with the trade technology. Fields, once setup and manned, never run out. You can also trade resources in the tavern (at a 10 to 1 ratio).
Note all the above are RTS games. The list is endless, buy I thing you got the idea.