Brainstorming: Unit Variants &Commander Specialisiation

Yes, I have. And I do not see how this system is so fundamentally different. You'll still have many similar but slightly different units of which you'd have to remember the markings/names to know what's different about them. Therefore they reduce readability and thus invalidate the chosen art style.
I only mentioned similar threads because several counter arguments from those threads also apply to your system.

Yes, they are. Your variants are upgrades in that they are slightly better but slightly more expensive. The method of upgrading isn't traditional in that you press a button or have them level up, but they're still upgraded units. You still get a slightly better unit for a higher cost and effort, therefore they are upgrades.

Your proposed system would also create the situation where there's lots of units (or variations) in the same role. This is increased complexity and development time for some slight changes. Then there's the problem of balancing, how do you balance the cost of a unit against the buff it gets. You're essentially creating a whole bunch of extra balancing work, which is already one of the most difficult parts of making an RTS.

And finally, I do not see what this adds to a battle. I want to see hordes of units clashing into eachother, I do not care whether one of my units is more slightly powerful than one of their units. I just want my army to be more powerful than their army.

Quite the opposite, if both players have access to the same units, the only difference between them is their skill level. Therefore it's much more interesting to watch a mirror match.

Yes. That's why MULTIPLE units exist. They don't all have to be equally good at everything.

Your arms race has already been played out. The units on the field are, by definition, the best units that can possibly be on the field. When it comes to firepower, cost, speed, and ease of use, the units used by the Commanders can NOT be improved any more.

Aha, the truth comes out. Fear not. The standard combat roles may be very straightforward, but that's the POINT. It makes the game easy to understand. There's still a TON of tangents, odds and ends to explore.

Testing will help determine how to best provide multiple avenues towards victory.

I didnt say those things.

I'm sorry, something went wrong with the quote button. I've edited my post and rectified the mistake.

OP, if you want to know more about the current plan for commanders, this is hte place to learn;

Commanders and what we know so far.
TL;DR - Commanders will be different, but all use the same ability pool to accomplish that.

The key point behind one faction is saving time and money, but there are other benefits, such was easier balancing, 'better' unit readability, and having a single, bigger unit Pool. The ultimate goal being having a big enough unit Pool, that 2 players, doing different strategies, won't have to build the same units.

As to the unit variations and such, don't forget, the differences are obvious when they're that big, and only a handful of units, but we'll be dealing with possibly HUNDREDS of units on screen, at variable zoom levels, there's also the issue of how do you present the differences when using Strategic Icons? To be frank I don't like it because I don't want to NEED to remember all the different stats and all the adjustments that happen throughout the game.

Mike

+1
However, thanks for the efforts to explain your ideas.