There is a fundamental issue with using RTS types of strategy and balance techniques within a FPS game. First and foremost the players themselves usually can not grasp the concept of weakness and strengths in an FPS. They expect everyone, regardless of side, to be basically balanced. They do however understand the differences of strength between kits on each side. But the moment Faction 1 has a better default infantry soldier than Faction 2 in some way the cries of "Foul!" come loudly and in large quantities. It will not matter that Faction 2's default infantry soldier variant number two has strength within it that can eliminate the strengths of Faction 1's default soldier. Most FPS players can not look past the most directly line of comparison. Do I think FPS players are less bright than RTS players? No I don't think they are but they are so used to it being this way for so long that it is hard coded into their heads. This is the same issue that most Vanilla BF2 players face when they first come to PR. Because PR is different from BF2 these players choose to complain that PR does not fit into their programing the same way and therefore must be flawed and unfair. Instead Vanilla BF2 players should attempt to unlearn their habits that gained them success in Vanilla BF2 and start learning the habits that gain them benefit in PR. This is called adaptation and is the key skill needed not only in video games but life in general as well as the real battlefield. Adapt and Overcome. Sadly this skill is quite lacking in the modern pre-adult population that are found in the video game community. Such required work is simply too difficult and time consuming for most of this ADD generation.

So even if a game is balanced via the RTS model the FPS community will not accept that sort of complicated solution.

The RTS model can be seen as unit 1A can be countered by unit 2C and that unit 2C can be countered by unit 1F and then coming full circle unit 1F can be countered by 2G which is then countered by 1A.

The FPS model can be seen as unit 1A has the same potential as unit 2A. Unit 1G can take out unit 2G and vice versa. Tank A can take out Tank B who can take out Tank C. This is the supported theory in the British/MEC/US/PLA tank models. The only difference that was not intended was error in model creation which then made Britsh Tank stronger than MEC tank or similar human made errors. The theory is sound but human error in creation of said models contributed to unfair balance according to the FPS unit balance theory. However such an error might have been intentional if looking at the RTS unit balance theory. Especially if you look at the MEC BMP APC that is stronger than the British APC. Perhaps there is a balance there after all but such an extension of looking at overall unit strength together is normally beyond FPS players in general.

Once again it seems as if I'm showing that FPS players are dumber than RTS players and that is not true. What I am showing is that FPS players are hard coded to think in this way and RTS players are not. There are many other differences including the ability to Micro is not needed in a FPS game but is extremely important in an RTS game. Fast reflexes and aim is not needed as much in an RTS game while its extremely important in a FPS game.

So in short, units of variable levels of strength on difference factions that share the same basic unit description will not be accepted by the FPS community due to the FPS community's lack of adaptation in the short term. If said change is made by a game and if that game survives with enough players for a while then the hard coded thinking of the player will begin to break down and new ways of thinking will develop. Case in point is the transition of BF2 Vanilla to BF2 Mod Project Reality.

Cheers.

P.S. - This obviously implies that I am also included in the FPS community and therefore am just as much at fault in being hard wired in certain ways.