I am creating a space-based RTS. So far, we have three units:
Fighters (cost 5 resources)
Interceptors (cost 20)
Rocket Ships (cost 40).
I've designed this game in a Rock-Paper-Scissors format (Fighters beat Interceptors, Interceptors beat Rocket Ships, Rocket Ships beat Fighters), but the game is designed so that classes beat each other at cost (i.e. a single Interceptor will beat a single Fighter, but four Fighters (cost 20) will beat a single Interceptor (cost 20)).
In this case, when I am using the Incomplete Wins technique to calculate the proportions of each ship that I would expect to see, should I calculate interactions using 1v1 interactions or "at cost" interactions? I believe the two will lead to very different results (for example, a single Fighter does 20% of damage to Interceptor before it itself is destroyed, but four Fighters destroy the Interceptor while only losing one ship; the first interaction leads to a 1 resource advantage for the Interceptor player, while the second interaction leads to a 15 resource advantage for the Fighter player). I would think it I should do the latter comparison, but the linked page does a single unit comparison (one Knight vs one Archer, even though Knight costs half that of Archer)
EDIT: This RTS is partially derived from Total Annihilation/Supreme Commander, so no projectiles hit instantly and the scale of the game is intended to be somewhat large. In that case, should I instead perform comparisons between armies that cost the same? For example, instead of comparing one Fighter vs one Interceptor or four Fighters vs one Interceptor, should I instead compare 40 Fighters vs 10 Interceptors? Would that be more accurate and also help reduce randomness of projectile hits?