Okay, this was originally a reply in Vulcan's "favorite armor" thread, but I think it's best to give this its own thread. I would like to point out why I hesitated to implement "armor counters" and I probably will not make it one of my future directions, unless sincerely convinced. Now let's get to the point. Because I think armor counters would actually make the gameplay stale, not the other way around. "You get this to counter that." "You don't get this to counter that and you lose." It makes the game single-way, you follow that way or it'd be very unlikely for you to win. For example, if you see A and you don't research B to counter that, you lose(or essentially drop your winrate to 20%). And now, this is actually the most important reason: In late game where everyone has multiple options, the gameplay becomes literally rock, scissor, paper with counters, you have absolutely no idea what you'll be fighting against. "Is the enemy going to use Homing? Guided? Bio ML? Ranged? HE?" Even if it's "soft-counters", you still get punished because hey, you guessed that wrong, I know you are a good player but still, you got unlucky man. No, that's not decision-making in RTS games, that's essentially luck. If we are perfect AIs, you can say : Okay, 2 of you get Compo, 2 of you get Reactive, 4 of you get Absorbant...etc And you guys do this XYZ formation, let Compo take the first wave of damage and then Reactive moves in, Absorbant flanks...etc No, that's just virtually impossible to see in Empires gameplay. It's fun to see those in actual RTS games because you can actually make them happen with your control skills, but no, not in Empires. What does our armors do now? They offer you different playstyles, you pick your favorite armor to work with. You can't say that because all armors are more or less good for any given circumstance, so they are basically the same. No, they are very different if you look at them closely.