Balancing idea

[TheKoopa]

If you have t1 at min 20:

Ctrlk
Reclime
Put into t3 mexes or t3 units
Win game because you have more t3 units

[Lieutenant Lich]

It is easier to vet on T1. t3 kills those easily and vets up. This is why T1 becomes unwanted - because there are stronger units in play that are
1) harder to kill
2) they concentrate power of many in one so more of those tough units must be killed to vet.
That system of veterancy may not be too good but it makes lower tech obsolete as the game progresses which is as it should be.

[Hawkei]

i dunno who you play but people defend their mexes...

no i do not agree because you are taxed by upgrading the tech already

If you don't agree with the OP's proposition (which is to alter balance so that T1 is useful in late game) then why are you arguing with me? What I am try to say is that T1 is comparatively useless, but, can sometimes be useful for getting vision on an area, keeping tabs on your opponent, and probing their defences for weak points.

I'm not saying that you should be using a lot of T1. I'm just saying that it has some minor role to play. If you actually mean to overcome a known defensive position, then yes, I'd say bring an appropriate sized force. But if you don't know what is there. You send a small group of T1 to see what is there. Sending the T3 bot, without backup, on a suicide mission, could lead to even greater loss for no gain. With a small T1 group there is little vet to be given away, and it costs you hardly anything. Yet, by taking that risk you stand to reap a huge bonus if that T1 runs into an undefended position, or a bunch of engineers on a reclaim mission.

I'm not saying to build so many T1 that you have path finding issues. I'm not saying to integrate T1 into a T3 army (except in specific circumstances). I'm not saying to throw so many T1 at enemy that they gain any significant veterancy gain. I'm not saying to send T1 against positions which are known to be well defended with superior force... Fact of the matter is that at least in 1000 to 1400 ranked games, there is usually some form of T1 buzzing around and doing stuff. Even when there is T3 and T4. I think what I'm saying is tactically sound, and I'm rather bewildered as to why you would persist in this argument when your so obviously wrong.

[Um ZiniZini]

In my opinion this is pointless because the game is already pretty well balanced.

The most cost efficient Units are T1. The least cost efficient are T4.
For example If you invest the same amount of mass into Percivals or Bricks, they will win over any direct fire T4 such as Cickens, Monkeylord and so on.

Yes T1 is more cost efficient on paper, in the real game try being more "cost efficient" with ur xxxxx amount of T1 units fighting experimental with the horde of T1's terrible pathfinding. same with mass to mass if u have T2/T3 units of same mass vs experimental of same mass, on paper the horde wins but in reality..... the pathfinding of the horde is pathetic and they get picked off quite easily by the experimental, if the pathfinding was good for lots of units I would agree, but its not so.

[Hawkei]

Yes T1 is more cost efficient on paper, in the real game try being more "cost efficient" with ur xxxxx amount of T1 units fighting experimental with the horde of T1's terrible pathfinding. same with mass to mass if u have T2/T3 units of same mass vs experimental of same mass, on paper the horde wins but in reality..... the pathfinding of the horde is pathetic and they get picked off quite easily by the experimental, if the pathfinding was good for lots of units I would agree, but its not so.

The effectiveness of a particular unit is entirely dependant on whether you are using it for it's intended purpose. If you send a T1 horde against it's equivalent in a T4 unit, they will not be effective. But if your army is trying to take out 20 undefended mexes spread over a 40 x 40 km map the T1 horde will be decidedly more effective than a T4. Because, it moves faster, can be in many places at once (and most importantly) is expendable.