Interesting watch. What struck me was the subtle difference between the two factories abilities to produce units that are A. Relevant at time of fielding and B. Remain relevant / useful.

It appears that shieldbot units are drastically cheaper than rover units on the whole, directly effective against the rovers, and a shieldbot user can make cost simply through the passage of time.

Bandits are massable, mobile and cost for cost offer a lot more options than scorchers.

The 175 cost Thug's durability seems on par with the 250 cost ravager, who's only seeming benefit is more speed, which doesn't strike me as a desirable statistic for that unit. If rover's inherent boon is the mobility of their units, why does it come at such additional cost to the base offering? Or is the thug still simply too cheap? Also consider that the thug virtually "self repairs" without any additional logistical effort from the player, a stealth lazyboy advantage against a manually repairing opponent.

Rogues seem to remain relevant when fencers have fallen off in meaning. A single rogue missile is easy to dip in, fire and retreat, and if it hits, has serious consequences. Meanwhile, a fencer has mobility jank and doesn't have a meaningful payload for juking combat. For that reason, Rogues will always be a smart investment and fencers will always deprecate in value. Sometimes it's best just not picking a unit in certain matchups and this could be the case here, but rovers will feel the lack of a skirmisher here, especially with the cost of badger and thug's ability to deny it the chance to fulfill that role.

Impaler always good to see and often proves to be very useful.

All in all, shieldbots scale a little too well over time, rovers not so much.

My points stand, unanswered at that.