https://code.google.com/p/zero-k/source/browse/trunk#trunk%2Fmods%2Fzk%2FLuaRules%2FConfigs%2Fcai%253Fstate%253DclosedYou might have an easier time looking at the configs. But it's hard to improve this if you're new to the game, it's made by
GoogleFrog who is a top 5 player.
Your balance idea might sound good but that is not how game design works.
Some units are easier to use, some are incredibly difficult to use at 100% efficiency by anyone but top players. Some units are used as a staple for every game, others are intentionally meant to be niche units only brought out for specific scenarios. Some units you only ever really need one of (Felons, Firewalkers, Screamers, Advanced radar towers).
Naturally, a unit that is more expensive is used rarely, even if it's worth the power, the price of Starlights and Banthas would drop precipitously. I mean, just the AA turrets, because there are 5-6, would all be cheaper just because you have the option of building any one over the other. Since each factory has an AA unit, their costs would also vary greatly to the point that you'd have to build certain factories just for their AA.
Think of the skuttle, a 500 cost anti-heavy cloaking suicide unit. It's used very rarely, but when it works you can make 2-4 cost. As it cost drops, it starts making cost vs cheaper and cheaper units.
Then there are all the players spamming units they like to use but don't know how to use, are losing anyway, and drive the unit price up further or further: or the people do do this -on purpose-.
This is just not what 'balance' means.
We actually keep stats on most things you can imagine from unit use per game, percentage of games used, damage done and dealt, damage done per unit class, damage done in cost of damaged unit and the all important cost in damage divided by investment, and cost in damage divided by cost of units lost.
But even this does not account for shields or repair, gives only vague notions of EMP or disable damage, and does not account for the biggest problem with all of these things, which is that almost all games are won on ECONOMY, rather than exclusively on units. This means that you can have an army 2-3x the size, which just doesn't take any damage from the enemies piddling opposition, and so seems to be doing much better than really warrants for it's power. Or that you can pour 2-3x the enemies whole economy worth of units uselessly into his static defenses and lose them all and -still- manage to win because you have 5x the economy. So what really won you the game was when you used a tiny handful of a totally different unit much earlier to contain his expansion and take the whole map, and now you're spamming some totally different unit at him after it's already over.
Which is why the only real way to judge a units power, to take in every single variable it is possible to do so, is for players with a deep understanding of the game to examine high level play using those units, and how they perform. Which is ultimately how every game that is balanced, in so far as it is balanced, is balanced. It would be nice to think there is some algorithm you can use, some piece of code you can write, which will perfectly simulate how the unit performs in game and tell you what it should cost. But such an algorithmic simulation already exists. It's the game itself.
