Legs vs track: Style vs. Function

Yes, yes (if mountain bike is not a bicycle, but motorcycle). We have a PerfectTech™ here, so we assume that every unit has best possible engine that could be used with that weight and size (size ~ weight (proportional), so we may stay with just "weight").

Of course, we may also make unit that has one small turret, but one huge jet engine - it will be heavy-but-fast. But this is specific unit anyway. Anyway, it's not about chassis type again - it's about engine weight/useful weight ratio. Passenger train may move with speed up to 200 km/s, but loaded freight train? No way.

I suppose that we could account weight/useful weight ratio for specific cases.

Of course (with similar size - huge bi-pedal chassis may carry much more than small tracks). Yet again - it's about weight. Now, please, could you provide us a simple map - what chassis type (bi-pedal, multi-leg, wheel, tracks, hover) may carry what weight group (light, middle, heavy, super-heavy)?

Also, in PerfectTech™ we may assume that we have small gravity compensators/jet trusters to help bi-pedal units gain stability (otherwise bi-pedal tech is silly anyway).

That so-called 'eye candy' was what sold me on Total Annihilation. The spontaneous, emergent gameplay that resulted from it gave the game ambition; a draw. Games without that end up in the back of store shelves.

The clunky "simulated war" aspect and bad pathfinding are not correlated, and it's a bit arrogant to claim any particular map design is 'a thing of the past'(Especially when so far the gameplay visualization video depicts a more condensed planet/map design reminiscent of Total Annihilation.).

And wait...what? I've been giving you examples of where I would need certain units. The best you can muster is simulated terrain doesn't 'necessarily' create new units?

Eh, this discussion is going nowhere. I've already outlined my points. I'll just say this:

Having a wide array of unit traits to pick from is far more important than seeing how many ways those traits can be combined.

definately untrue, the coms woud have one leg folded one straight when sideways on a hill, to stay upright. and he ones with legs (mantis, mechmarine), were the fastest units.

I always thought that leg thing was bloody amazing.

Love it. I definitely agree.

This delineation in function also gave TA an element of strategy as well (as you noted). It resulted in true combined arms forces, as you always had to be prepared for rapid assault opportunities (tracked vehicles) as well as rugged terrain assault opportunities (legs).

Of course, some PA-backers may argue that PA is all about macro-strategy where such tactical considerations are little to no concern. They could be right.

But that's why I do wish that PA weren't interplanetary in scale and focused on operational warfare. That would make PA the true spiritual successor to TA.