That is true... the sides are so close that on any given random match, any of the "races" can beat any other. However, I don't think that this means they are "perfectly" balanced. Player skill, obviously, has a lot to do with it.
When the discussion turns to balance for any RTS game, I look at it this way: Every side ALWAYS has an optimal strategy. The way these games are designed, with each side having a unique "strength," there is always a mathematically "best" build order which complements that strength. This can be easily witnessed by watching the "top" players in action. Without fail, there is always a dominant strat used by the best players of any given side. Mathematically, it gives them the best odds of winning when you don't know what your opponent is gonna do. (The most obvious of this can be seen in WarcraftIII, where EVERY high ranking game is a replay of the same strats going against each other.)
By comparing the success of these "master builds," it gives IMHO the best indicator of balance. And how do we guage the success of the builds? By seeing who the best predominantly play as. Since these guys' #1 priority is winning, they will rarely choose the side they think is "neat-o." They will pick the side that, based on the master builds, will give them the best odds of winning. In the case of Generals, we can see that the GLA make up a minority of the top ranked armies. This, to me, demonstrates that the GLA are a bit underpowered.
|