I agree with pintle
BA sea is pitiful, OTA sea was not as pitiful, but still, not very good.
Using either of them as a model for a working model of sea balance is utterly flawed.
The problem is that in sea, everything costs more, a lot more, takes longer, and flexibility is much lower than on land. So you cant just go sea without being vulnerable, and with a low economy for a significant portion of the vital early game, so instead you go land to build conbots and cap mexes.
But then this looses you time, and as soon as that happens, the person who got a ship out first comes and blows everything up, the counter being a heavy early investment in a defence of some sort.
Eitherway in 80% of cases, the water game is decided assuming any real effort is made to capture territory at the start and not as a going concern.
The main exceptions to this are when noobs are playing, or in massive XTA games of old, where extreme skill or extreme negligence has conspired to work around these issues with great effort (or stupidity).
My suggestions for sea (applicable to all *A games)
- Cheap sea units are too expensive
- Cheap sea units usually take too long to build
- t1 sea should cost generally as much as t1 land, take the same time to build, and have the same firepower
- t2 ships should cost and take the same time as their equivilant t2 units
- Long range ships at t1 should be extra and come at a tier 1.5 premium like hovercraft
- Long range ships at t2 should take as long and cost as much as roughly the sumos and fatboys of the *A world
- The top end ships are either way overpowered or overcosted, they tend not to be both unless they're the big custom ships you didn't get in OTA with 30 turrets, and they're never underpowered cheap things.
From that we can use a lot of the things learnt from land to model the sea game.