>>66012
As I said, they wanted to make things easy on themselves. There is also the school of thought that RTSes represent a kind of abstraction of actual combat from that era. Look at how the old C&C games did balance, which was basically the same idea: an infantryman an inch away on the screen from a tank would take a tank shell in the face, but take almost no damage. The idea was that in any "realistic" combat scenario the tank would almost certainly not be able to hit an infantryman head on with a shell like the game represents, based mostly on the idea that men are small targets and would nearly always in real combat be far away enough from a tank that they would be hard to hit and could probably manage not to be in the tank's arc of fire in the first place. Now, if the balance works out that way because of the explanation or if the explanation exists to justify previously made balance decisions, I don't know. I guess in the CoH example the idea would be that an elite infantryman would be faster to recognize and take cover from mortar fire, or would take cover more effectively, or whatever. Again, though, that's almost certainly just after the fact justifications for the balance decisions they want to make anyhow, and I don't think anyone's ever claimed that RTS unit balance can be or should be able to be deduced from some kind of first principles. I also don't see that a physics based ballistics system is