One race = perfect balance!

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.

Having just read all 19 pages of comments, one element of balance that didn't seem to get much discussion is that of Player Preference.

Using myself as an example, I nearly always prefer to use an air-focused approach, for the flexibility / lack of path-finding & terrain headaches, etc, and am willing to put up with the concomittant weaknesses of this approach.

Using a factional based approach could potentially advertise this to my opponent ('oh, he's picked faction XYZ, so I'll need to be ready to counter bombers & gunships'), whereas a single unit pool approach forces my opponent to actually scout me out (and gives me a chance to block their scouts) to find this information. It also forces me to do the same. I can try building a KBot factory to make it look like I'm also making ground units (at a potential penalty to my air-unit builder order progress) - use of dis-information because the single unit pool approach allows it.

A single unit pool approach also allows me to flex away from my preferred 'solution' (either because I've played against someone often enough that they know my standard strategies, or because my scouting has uncovered an apparent weakness in their tactics/strategy) - I'm not constrained to only fighting in line with the 'ideals' of my faction. That 'dummy' KBot factory I created at the start might become the focus after I convince the opponent that I've gone air as usual.

As for ways to introduce asymmetry or local imbalance, terrain is one way. As stated above, In TA (and SC) I tend to prefer air units for their speed and flexibility of approach - and the fact that they can ignore terrain (including 'impassable' features) - at least for movement (proper 3D terrain limits line-of-sight etc, forcing me into certain attack vectors if I want to be able to hit my target). Thus whilst I might prefer to use aircraft (and indeed usually will), my housemate would tend to take vehicles (with plenty of air support ) and use the terrain to try and control my attack vectors. Same map, same terrain, same units (more-or-less), two very different ways of approaching the fight.

One final ramble in favour of single unit pool is that not only does each player get access to all offensive units, but also to all defensive units. This opens up some interesting tactical-level approaches. Most of this talks about units from TA, including the subsequent weekly downloads, such as:
*) Flak Cannon (a tier-2 anti-air unit, iirc) - against an individual air unit is was incredibly weak - slow tracking, slow firing, not very accurate. Turns out that just a couple of them were lethal against a big swarm of planes. It gave a nice counter to hawk-swarms, and introduced new tactics (like trying to time the flight of a cheap scout across just in front of the bombers, to drag the aim of the flak cannons off target long enough for the bombers to drop their load)
*) Pop-up plasma cannons (tier 2 iirc) - when not actively engaging an enemy unit, it sank down below an armoured cover, so that it took less damage (e.g. from air attacks / bombardment). Made it harder to eliminate heavy defences from afar before making a land rush

With a 'traditional' segregated unit pool approach, the nominal 'air-weak' faction would get the flak cannon, and the 'land-weak' faction would get the popup plasma cannon, meaning that each faction would only have 1 defensive strategic option. With a single unit pool, every player has access to such units and/or has to adapt when their enemy deploys them. As an Air player, either of the above units would be a potential counter against me - the flak cannon more so than pop-up plasma cannon, but the plasma would make an effective area-denial weapon near resources - I can fly over, but not build resource collectors etc. And I know that my enemy has access to both units, because we share the same single unit pool. We both have two defensive options.

The counter argument is that instead of trying to balance multiple segregated unit pools against each other (SC approach), the devs now need to balance units together within the single unit pool. The key difference is that in the SC approach, for example, adding a new unit to the terrans to offset a weakness against Zerglings may make terrans over powered compared to Protoss - it becomes very hard to balance one relationship without adversely affecting other relationships. At least with a single unit pool, all players will have access to the new unit and are thus able to use it to counter the opponents use of it.

In short, and to answer the point of the OP, One race (well, single unit pool) might not be perfect balance, but (imo) it makes it easier to get closer to perfect.

edit: I appear to have written a bit more than intended - my apologies. Next time I get the urge to pontificate, I'll wait for the christmas alcohol to drain out first

I don't know who made that quote but yeah. It is pretty much what I'm arguing for.
Let's brake down "asymmetry".
What you refer to are asymmetric starting conditions.
Starting conditions can be the map/planet/solarsystem, starting position, resource distribution, different factions, different tech and different bonuses for example.
As soon as the game starts, even if the game has symmetric starting conditions, asymmetry occurs. Players input might be varied in time, build orders might be different, the decisions that the players makes are different.

Yes, it is up to the players to exploit and take advantage of the mistakes and decisions that the opponent makes and when we say that a game is balanced it means that both players have the equal chance of winning and multiple ways of achieving victory.
Having asymmetric strategic goals means that the players needs to use different tactics to gain the advantage.
Examples can be that a player with less eco needs to deal damage with his bigger army, that a player that has invested alot in an airforce needs to deal with ground AA or avoid it or that player that has invested alot into the sea needs to be able to hold land.
In a strategy game the long term strategic goals should be able to shift and it is up to the players to figure out what strategic goals that they need to achieve to be victorious.

Then it moves to through the enemy lines. If you want the unit to auto-kite when it engages enemies on the way to the destination you can give the unit a Fight command in Zero-K. Fight command is similar to A-move in Starcraft or attack move in SupCom where the unit stops to fire when it gets in range of the enemy.
Anyway if you don't think that kiting will be able to give you a big advantage in PA then it's not much point in discussing it.

You might be able to assist factories. Anyway. What I mean is that you don't necessarily need to use more than 1 type of factory in every game. If both players start on the same planet you might be able to end the game in a rush or whatever.

There can be asymmetry here. The hovers ability to go on land can make up for their their inefficiency in combating ships which would depend on the land:sea distribution and the traversability of the coastline. If hovers are just 5% less efficient for cost in sea combat compared to ships then you might be able to make up for it by raiding on the land or just investing more into hovers and saving on something else.

When I say early game I mean in 1v1 on the same planet. What may hurt 1v1 battles? Having hovers or ships dominate early in the game? Just make what dominates on the current planet then. If you wish to switch to the other later you can do that.

With a strict map formula you can balance it like that. Anyway. Ships and hovers can be "perfectly balanced" in regard to that hovers are more useful on maps with less water and ships are more useful on maps with more water. It is balanced because both players have the same options.

It is definitely map dependant. Hovers might still be more advantageous than transporting pure land units.

I don't know that either.

There is no timeless asymmetry here. Both players have the same options. Not every composite force needs to be balanced against every other composite force. Some composite force might win against other composite forces and lose against other composite forces. It could be like RPS. Composite force A wins against composite force B. Composite force B win against composite force C. Composite force C win against composite force A. All compositions might be equally viable.

Inaccuracy is randomness. Do you say that all artillery in PA should be 100% accurate? The only thing in Starcraft that I think is randomness is SCV paths when they build a structure going around on different sides of the structure and inside the structure.

Yes, offcourse the asymmetry is temporal. I didn't say it were timeless.
But the point is that there is temporal asymmetry because there is a transitional cost to unlock both hovers and ships which means there is a global and/or local asymmetry before both players have unlocked both hovers and ships. I might do fine with just ships if I just make "SniperShip" and beat your "SniperShips" because you spent resources on a hover factory. After that I can counter your "SpamHover" with "TankShip". I might not even need to unlock hovers the whole game.

SupCom 1v1 mirror matchups worked like that(arguably most matchups worked like that because t1 land spam dominated land and worked pretty similarly in most matchups). You make too much eco and you lose territory. You make to much defence and the enemy can eco.
Once your economy grows and the army sizes grow the transitional cost of teching up is relatively smaller. Holding off 40 tanks with 20 is much harder than holding off 100 with 80 so teching for more effective units or ecoing for a long term gain without losing territory becomes substantially less risky when armies grow and the economy grow. That is why teching up to t3 on a big map is much more easy because by the time it takes for t1 units to reach you, you can eco and have prepared a counter.
As I have argued before, keeping several viable strategical options with 1 unit pool is much easier than with several factions.

Wow, what a stirring debate my post has created...!

I think that it is easier to keep several playstyles and strategies viable with just 1 faction.

1 big problem with balancing pure air vs pure ground units is that air player is active while the ground player is passive. In TA air is very fast and allterrain. This makes the airplayer able to make cost/benefit analysis of striking anywhere on the map according to the intel he got. The airplayer can actively chose where to strike and against what targets. The ground player however is passive in that his anti-air defence can't keep up with the airplanes manoeuvres and the only active choices the ground player can make is where to make more antiair. The airplayer can probably also access how much buildpower the ground player got and include that in his cost/benefit analysis before making a strike.
Having pure air vs pure ground where 1 player is active and 1 player is passive is bad because the passive player can not affect the outcome as the active player can do.
If pure air is more effective than pure ground then air will dominate in all situations and air will be a must because once you reach the skill ceiling of defending against pure air then nothing more can be done because you are passive if you use pure ground.
If pure air is weaker then pure ground then you can't beat a player who have reached the skill ceiling of pure ground because every cost/benefit analysis will result in your loss.
Offcourse this can depend on the map/planet as they might require air in competitive play.

So how could a pure air strategy be balanced with a pure ground strategy?
Allowing the ground player to be active aswell:
If battling against pure air with pure ground allows both players to have active choices then the one who uses the best micro and tactics can use that to their advantage. However a combo of fighters and ground works the same way against pure air.
Imperfect scouting:
Pure air could be better than pure ground if the air player could see all of the map but since he doesn't, he cannot make accurate cost/benefit analysis of where to strike. If the ground player can deny scouting, the air player are more likely to make mistakes allowing the ground player to gain the upper hand. This can cause the air player to just make decisions on intuition or in hope to be lucky.
This might cause the success of the air player just to be based on luck in some cases.
Windows of opportunity:
If there are different buildorders and strategies that have different weaknesses then it is up to the players to exploit them and use that to their advantage.
Feinting and bluffing:
Like you mentioned, feinting to go land or feinting to go air can trick your opponent into a position where he is passive and/or lacks the counters to your attacks. It is about outwitting your opponent.
Slow airplanes and gunships:
If the airplanes aren't so fast the ground player can manoeuvre to keep up with the air units. This is more like Starcraft where flying units can go everywhere but are not faster than all ground units.

Your welcome. I pretty much agree with what you've said and I know it is easy to just ramble on.
Hm... We had an air factory first thread a while ago but this post is almost ontopic anyway

That's not asymmetry. The human element is not asymmetry. CHOICE is not asymmetry.

Asymmetric design is about creating a DELIBERATE imbalance between two forces. Ideally, this creates two separate but equally attainable goals in the end. There is no such thing here, because both players begin with the exact same choices. They use the exact same resources, aim for the exact same goal, and have the exact same weapons to get there. The only thing possibly asymmetric between anyone at all is created by the MAP, and nothing else.

The air strategy gets completely over run because air units are not made for wide open tank plains.

There is no need for every factory to be "separate but equal". Every unit has its own purpose, and every factory likewise has its own reason to be built. There is no reason that any particular factory, especially one with such a tangential role, has to compete head to head with every other factory.

I think you need to widen your definition of asymmetry.
Would you call choosing factions a choice that causes asymmetry? All players have the option to choose whatever faction they want before the game.
What if you chose faction as the game starts?
What if you chose factions 1 minute into the game?
What if you chose factions 5 minutes into the game?
What if you can change faction after 10 minutes of the game?
Where would you draw the line between what causes asymmetry and not?
I wouldn't draw the line there because everything that is not symmetric is asymmetry.
If the first factory I make is air while you make a land factory then I can make air units while you can make land units. Temporarily we have different options. Even if you can make air units later currently there is asymmetric conditions . If I patrol over your base with fighters you can't make bombers because I will shoot them down.

I did not say that every factory has to compete head to head with every other factory. Don't make a strawman.
I'm arguing about how a pure air strategy could be balanced with pure land strategies not that pure air strategies must be balanced with pure land strategies in PA.

After reading through everyones posts, I felt it was a good read and I might as well voice my own logical opinion.

One race = Perfect Balance

I believe this to be true, but only perfect balance REGARDING units and structures that are available. This IS NOT true for specific stratedgys and other variables.

For example, Arm vs Arm. Instead of saying or knowing that the other has a better unit or a weaker unit, they can focus on thier own stratedgy/apm/macro/micro to win. So one couldn't say that they won or loss because of a unit/rng issue but that they won or loss because one was more skilled.

You can't truly balance different races because one unit or part of a race will be better then a different part.

In comparison to real life lets take a look at history. Technology or different gear has changed a way a war goes. Spartans were elite but lost due to failing economy that couldn't keep up with the amount of wars it was waging and a technological and strategic disadvantage they didn't adapt too. Macedonias Front lines had smaller shields and longer spears. They weren't as well trained as the spartans but the smaller shields made it easier to use longer spears which the 3rd and 4th lines could reach to help stab at the front. This is what I consider at the time to be imbalanced. Why was expensive trained units losing to cheaper untrained units. The Spartans also had to deal with getting kited, javelin throwers would throw run away then throw some more, not having too much armor and weight to carry they could easily kite the spartans. In real life if a different race is overpowered the other race dies. In a game when the other "race" dies we either complain about other race, or switch to it.

So Spartans vs Spartans would be fair in the aspect of them both having equal units and technology. If it was Spartans vs Macedonians it would be imba because one race uses a different unit setup and if players skills dont have to be good with Macedonians in order to beat Spartans it wouldn't be fun. So a Same Race vs Same race would come down to whose strats and tactics are better and whos faster or error free. Which I think is the goal here, for the outcome of the game to be based on skill and not on who you chose to play.

Looking at Starcraft 2 and Blizzard games in general, they always tend to have a flavor of the month. Look at thier tournaments, Protoss leading the way. Don't get me wrong blizzard seems to always find balance, especially in WoW, but after years of trying they can't do it.

Now regarding boredom...

The differences making it "boring" from what I think you guys mean is that; everyone looks the same, strats or the strat will be the same for everygame. This I guess is grounds for an arguement. If you think of multiple races as a way to say..."oh wow if I play this race the strat is way different, units look different, and even though the other race has better units if I can win as this race that means my skill is better than the person with the "faceroll" race". All plausible...but then can start a flame war which involves pros only play so and so race and a good majority of people enjoying an easier way to win choosing the other race.

So multiple races imo, removes boredom(to some) but causes imbalance as a trade off. A fair chance to say who won because of skill and not race is not boring to me. If I do get bored I can just jump inbetween games but if I got stuck with one I would hate that.

One Race does equal perfect balance, at least for the avialable units aspect of the game. Where one unit can effective beat all the other units when massed therein lies another problem, but a lot easier to balance.

so if i understood this right there will be for example two faction with one having an unit like bulldog(arm TA) and the other a reaper(core TA) right?

No, the idea is that both/all sides have exactly the same units. Same looks, same stats, same everything. They are playing with the idea of having different types of commanders, but the units will be the same for everyone.

at least make them look different...

Except that that is the second most difficult task. (The first being balancing.)

You have any idea how long art assets take?

Mike

no, but with a dlc or expansion they can for sure make it, i'm not demanding it at launch of course

Then you need to say that, we ain't psychic, not that it matters, there is no point behind creating cosmetic differences at that scale.

Mike

I don't see what should be wrong about the single unit-pool concept. Most great games in history, you know the ones that predate many modern cultures, are basically symmetrical unit balance.

Chess, the game of kings, is just two minds forced to fight over identical parameters. Asymmetrical balance is just a cool idea that many RTSs screw up terribly as well. CoH has annoyed the hell out of me with that. Not to mention, look at the new Starcraft2 beta. Apparently adding new units to their vaunted "perfect balance" is sacrilege, so no space for growth. Adding units to one faction without adding to another becomes the problem, whereas if everyone has the same units then its just a global balance that matters.

Its just better for everybody, not to mention it saves us from the pointless, if entertaining, "Core vs Arm?" argument.

Post-release or not, it is still assets which take a margin out of developer resources. Surely those could be better spent on expanding the existing unit pool or on biomes, or anything which will add substance over just reskinning the entire army.

Surely post release would have different resources then the ones they have allocated to the main development process?

Post release they will have a different focus, primarily bug fixing, optimization and balancing(and you're super naive is you think that will be 100% dealt with in Alpha/Beta) then there is the fact of additional content, Uber has stated they what to try and have new units released at regular(and fairly short possibly) intervals.

There is still plenty of work to be done post release.

Mike