Is it possible to balance the game (FAF) scientifically, that is to say empirically, from real game outcomes?
Firstly, a game has a meta-balance; the way it is balanced tactically and strategically by primary concepts and design decisions. I am not talking about that level of balance. Rather, I am talking about the balance of the game (FAF) as it exists now. Please bear with me if these are not all new ideas. It might also help to methodically list existing ideas.
The first thing to do is collect and analyze real game data. I assume this is being done now. The place to start (but not finish) would be to analyze ladder 1v1 games.
(a) What are the faction win rates?
(b) What are the faction win rates broken down by map type (size by terrain Type)?
(c) What are the faction win rates broken down by rating categories?
Then;
(d) What are the build stats and death rate stats for each combat unit type (including fixed weapons) analysed overall and by tier?
From (d) we can deduce some things like (i) the most popular units at each Tech tier by faction, (ii) the most popular units for high rated players at each Tech tier by faction (on the assumption that high rated players know and use the good units well), (iii) The most effective units, their survival numbers and kill numbers compared to their production numbers and so on.
Starting to look at these stats might help us to home in on OP and UP factions, OP and UP units and other aspects of balance. Of course, it's likely none of these ideas are new but are they being looked at? It just takes a bit a data mining and spread-sheeting I guess.