Should we remove bombers because new players don't know about AA before they get bombed? No, because that's a stupid fucking argument that goes against the core of RTS.
Do you add aim-assist for bad players in FPS because they're losing to more practiced players? No, because that'd be just as dumb.
You're trying to lower the skill level of the game, instead of trying to raise the skill of players. Literally trying to remove the core tenant of RTS improvement.
Half these balance threads are one map wonders complaining that a unit is performing well on the map it's designed for. Holy shit marauders are decent for amphibious raiding? Their primary use case? I'm fucking shocked. In other news, boats are good on sea, more news at 11.
The entire point of playing RTS is to think about units strategically, and to think and develop counters and interesting play styles. Are some units harder to use than others? Sure, it's a skill that players can practice and develop. You know what I did the first time Austin rolled me by spamming bedbugs? It sure as fuck wasn't to come here and ask for bed bugs nerfs. It was to watch the replay and see what he did and to think of how to counter it.
Like 95% of players just need to try to replicate what they saw and then they'll learn the counters. Let's encourage that. MBT tick spammed me to death once, and the next game I tried it back against him, only to discover that Junos are a unit.
That's fun, that's learning, development, and it's what makes BAR an awesome RTS. As a player it's far more rewarding to learn and practice how to use a niche unit than it is to see unit complexity flattened.