Let me just say that I prefer situation when kiting isn't much advantage. You may save one or two units by kiting, but it should not affect 100+ vs 100+ units battle much. And what if your unit has a command to move forward though enemy lines? Yes, it IS local tech unlocking. To create a particular unit at particular place you need to build particular structure (factory) at this place. What? I thought that every RTS has proven opposite thing. With scale of PA you'll need more than 1 factory - on each planet, at least. With your proposition you are increasing the time offender need to strengthen his positions on assaulted planet. That's bad idea, IMO. 1. Ships > hovers. Good. No hovers on sea battles - only when sea is yours and you need to raid enemy base deep into land. No asymmetry. 2. Ships < hovers, but ships + additional roles. If they are weaker (mean - less effective on sea), than you do sea battle with hovers, using ships only as special forces/after battle bombardment. Not fun and probably won't happen due to water worlds (they should be different from land worlds). 3. Ships > hovers, but hovers + additional roles. Hovers already have additional roles - ground ones. But if you are talking about additional roles that give additional efficiency within sea battle, than hovers+ships pairing became mandatory. 4. 5. Late/early. Early game is relevant only in well... early game. You may not balance it too much. End-game balance is what is more important. If by early game you mean "early stages of invasion", than you have asymmetry here already - offender vs. defender. And it may really hurt small 1v1 battles. 6. Hovers may travel land. Suddenly. That's defining ability of hovers. You can't "balance" using that. 7. Ships artillery, hovers don't have artillery. That's situational, dependent on map. It's just "here you can't use hovers. So bad, use transports and land units". FA is using weak hovers, but with additional roles and hovers are more efficient at early game. This may work in PA as well, but i'm not sure if it will scale well enough and will not make navy invasion impossible. It's not exactly easier, as balance complexity is dependent (exponentially, btw) upon possible viable unit combinations - you need to balance composite forces too. If everyone may build everything than count of possible combinations (match ups) is clearly higher than with factions. Asymmetry makes task only harder, not easier. Actually, there should not randomness. That's not starcraft everything is calculated. Well, maybe it will not (there are calculation errors) last forever. But you will end up with full possible combination of all unit types at hand. One player built "SniperShip", other player built "SpamHover", first countered this with "TankShip", other - "SniperShip". First player has no other choice than to build "SpamHover". Cycled. If skill is equal than, probably, both players will be succeed in countering each offense way and both will end up with "SpamHover" + "SniperShip" + "TankShip" composite force. No asymmetry. Your asymmetry is temporal or territorial (local). I actually starting to change my mind that asymmetry in units is not needed. You'll have asymmetry by eco. And if there would no fast way to turtle some position up, economical/territorial situation will constantly shift leading to local asymmetry. Yet I do start to understand, that single pool is not easier to balance than factions.