WOWWWWW
so mean D:
What, pray tell, does it say, and why does it say that?
It seems to me that the greater ability for factions to enjoy a diverse and versatile unit pool / units while maintaining a strong sense of opportunity cost is the ideal.
I'd say the perfect RTS have multiple armies with multiple different playstyles each, they might be able to do same things, but they shouldn't be able to do it same way, if they were, why have multiple armies in the first place?
I'm sure it would suit your POV on the matter if, imagine this, soviets had stock infantry like Obers, but would it really be balanced or interesting? I don't think so.
Each army have unique flavor, unique units, unique strengths and weaknesses, unique playstyles and tactics.
Each army suits different players for different, visual and gameplay reasons, each army creates different synergies in team games and so on.
That is a healthy design.
You like something more in another faction that is absent with yours? Play that other army.
No one is pledging a vow of loyalty to death to Hitler, Stalin or Roosevelt, if anyone is locked within single army, its only because their own limited mindset.
@CieZ
Hey! I'm not that bad, at least I can admit defeat when proven wrong, even if my own argument was turned against me!