1) I didn't say those three base units (Zergling/Marine/Zelot) are 'basically the same'.  I said they complement each other in a triange based counter system.  If anything, your long analysis once again provided a detailed example of how Terran has a one up on the other races.

2) I wasn't trying to provide an 'excuse' to why games with more than 3-4 races don't have more unique units.  Its more like defending games for actually trying to move the genre forward, among the many people who just say 'Starcraft is perfect, everything else after sucks because its not Starcraft'.  People provide countless examples, and one major example is always 'Well all the races seem the same and use similar units'.  I just provided a counter point showing how not all the races are the same while also showing how the units in Starcraft are unique, but also fit the same specific molds in each race (light infantry, heavy infantry, light armor, heavy armor, light air, heavy air, reconnaissance unit, defense turret, etc).  Yes, the units in Starcraft also come with unique abilities that make them different from the other races, but they still conform to their roles as these basic unit types.  And to say AOE (or any other RTS, like Red Alert or Company of Heroes) sucks because they don't provide as much 'variety' as Starcraft, is simply ridiculous.  In some ways, other RTS games provide more variety and more units.  Take Age of Mythologies or Company of Heroes for instance.

^ Like I said before, it all comes down to what values in RTS games should be prioritized. Starcraft is the undisputed king when it comes depth, balance, strategical variety, competitiveness, the importance of micro/macro etc. There are other games that are trying to push innovation and new types of gameplay and other stuff, but no RTS has been able to innovate without sacrificing the values that Starcraft had, and that's why it is so timeless. It was somewhat innovative with it's three radically different races, but that was the only thing it innovated, other than that, Blizzard took existing concepts trailblazed by C&C and WC2 and perfected them into the perfect RTS for the values it pursues.

In other words: No RTS does what Starcraft does better than Starcraft.

I'm not saying that everything that came after Starcraft sucks, but no game has done what SC does but better. Of course there are more innovative games out there, and those innovations are certainly welcome.

EDIT: About the triangle-based counter system, I think it's a little more complicated than that. Marines can with good micro take out zealots until they get the speed upgrade. Marines and lings are about equal, and when lings get speed, they have the advantage. When Medics comes out, both zealots and Zerglings are useless against the M&M combo. When Zealots face off against lings it all comes down to micro, upgrades, and numbers.

That I can definitely agree with.  As even Warcraft III tried to innovate on the Warcract/Sracraft model, and it didn't work out.  Starcraft definitely perfected what it was trying to do for its time.  But I still think there's room for improvement, while adding another race or different mechanics.  Perhaps SCII will do that.  But so far, all it seems SCII is going to do is add more units.  I mean, Blizzard could do well to look at some of the other RTS that have come out since they have made Starcraft and incorperate some of their ideas, such as the 'cover' mechanic from Company of Heroes and, while Heroes were grossly overpowered and way too much of a focus in WCIII, the way they were used in AOEIII was much more balanced and fun.

Also I understand how upgrading techs and micromanagement will cause units to be stronger than other units (heck, that's what Starcraft is all about).  But I was just making a comparison of how the races were still developed to all have similar base units.  Of course the benefit to Starcraft having 3 races is that you can make the units much more unique and balanced.

Hey E.T. was basicly an adventure game and lets be honest that came out for the Atari 2600... also tough Alone in the Dark came out for the PC frist it got it done right IMO with RE first. Both gameplay and popularity wise...

Then there is the action/adventure genre like Uncharted which cannot be put in any exact category IMO and there is nowhere near a game like that on the PC. It combines platforming, 3rd person action, stealth in a new and unique way. Not even Thief didnt manage to do all that my friend And then there is the racing genre that was created again on the Atari 2600 and same is with the sport genre.... so no, your "solid" facts arent that exact

Your answer to Uncharted has been bolded. Also please talk to the wheel+pedals that are on the PC for the racing games. Kart games though are for consoles, Nintendo to be more exact.

Also keep in mind RE came out 4 years after Alone in the Dark. 4 years.....

Triangle-based counter system?  If you mean like those Rock/Paper/Scissors unit advantages, I disagree.  And as for Terrans having an advantage, they may for those types of units, but show me the Terran equivalent of the Carrier?  There isn't one.  Terrans are great, I love that race, but the Marines' versatility is balanced by other things. 

It seems to be like you are contradicting yourself when you say that those three units are not 'basically the same' and then turn around and say they "fit the same specific mold".  They're the same but different?? 

For another example, take your "reconnaissance unit":  The Protoss get Observers, which have basically no equivalent unit in the other races IIRC (the Terrans get that satellite ability and the Zerg have Queens' Parasites...). 

I'm not saying AoE "sucks" because it doesn't have unique races, I'm just taking issue with your apparent downplaying of the uniqueness of SC's races.  The games are very different, perhaps to the point where you are having trouble wrapping your head around the fact that many units just don't have direct equivalents in another race in SC because you are more used to AoE and similar games.  (I admit that is total speculation.)

Uh....the Terran equivalent to a Carrier is the Battle Cruiser.  I don't really see how there's any question of that.  Yes, they do completely different functions, but again, they basically compliment each other for being so opposite of each other.  One is a giant ship that fires large bursts of charged energy while the other sends out individual smaller ships to attack.  But its been shown time and again that a fleet of Battle Cruisers can take on a fleet of Carriers with good micromanagement.  As for the reconnaissance unit, the Terrans get the Science Vessal...and Turrets, Ghosts AND scanning from their Command Center.  In that regard, yes, it isn't a direct correlation...its rather unbalanced seeing as how much detection and reconnaissance ability the Terrans get .  As for the Zerg, they simply get the Scourge and Overlords.  But they're suppose to be the fastest race so they supposedly make up for it.

And again, I'm NOT saying that the units are basically the same.  I don't know how many times I have to say this.  I've said it every time now.  The units in Starcraft all have their unique roles that makes them unique.  But it is obvious how they were also created with the idea of trying to keep to the standards of the genre such as having a light infantry unit, a heavy infantry unit, a light armor, a heavy armor, etc.  They also have a few unique units in there (like Templars, Archons, Queens or cloaked reconnaissance units).  You need to realize, I'm NOT downplaying their unique characteristics.  Yes, a Zelot can overtake up to 4 zerglings by itself or be very effective against Marines with Leg Upgrades.  But you do need to understand, they still are both light infantry units.

On the same token, most other RTS games have the same exact setup of units countering other units.  And I feel many people just don't give them credit or even look very far into their gameplay because they simply 'aren't Starcraft'.  There's no denying that Starcraft was one of the first RTS games to balance the gameplay, but as I already said, that's because they limited the races down to 3.  Now we have tons of RTS games out where there's any number of races, from 4 (Company of Heroes/Dawn of War/Age of Mythology) up to 14 (Age of Empires series).  But I think its pretty petty to just say Age of Empires loses points just because they branched out and tried to add more races and scope to the genre.  And with the latest incarnation, they even added tons of unique units and abilities to each race.

In any event, if you really want to say Starcraft is the king of RTS because it seems to have the most unique features with each unit, then other RTS games like Age of Mythology or Company of Heroes has already surpassed it.  But I'm sure you're also meaning kind of what I'm meaning, unique units that compliment each other in a balance. 

Bolded part is where it shows you know nothing. Do you realize that the Probe of the Protoss is the best unit for scouting? It's always invisible and relatively heap. As for Zerg they pump out overlords nonstop for food supplies so they have an endless supply of them.  That is what gets hthem balanced out. As for the BC vs Carrier, they are completely differen.t Diferent costs, different stats, hell even different attacks.

Also please tell me where you put zerglings in. Light infantry? What's the hydralisk then? And the dragoon compared to the firebat? Or the ultalisks. Hell the zerg don't even have a BC or Carrier equivalent, but they do have an Ultralisk, which is the equivalent of what for the other races?

You can draw equivalents between some units (beginning and end) but there are some where it's impossible. What do you equate archons or siege tanks or goliaths with?

The SC races are so diferent that even their building systems are completely diferent.

But they're not all that "equivalent" IMO.  The reason micro can make BCs take on Carriers is because Carriers spend a good second or more launching their fighters; I haven't played competitively but I'd guess a Protoss player would be foolish to allow himself to be sucked into such a thing.  Carriers are good at taking on multiple targets, which BCs aren't; I'd have to check the stats to be sure but I'm pretty sure a Carrier does way more DPS -- BCs only have the advantage of range, especially with the Yamato (and, yes, they can shoot instantly for better micro).  They're only the same in that they're each the apex of their respective race's fleet; other than that, very different. 

Sci. vessels are way more expensive than Observers and can't cloak, AND the Protoss get turrets and Dark Templars (vs. turrets and Ghosts that aren't naturally cloaked, and the Protoss turrets can shoot the Ghosts), leaving comsats as the only real Terran advantage -- you're totally misrepresenting that situation IMO.  (Yes, I know Sci. vessels get to do a bunch of cool stuff, but still.)

I'm not disputing that many people fail to give other RTSes a fair shake; I'm just disputing what I see as you misrepresenting StarCraft in turn. 

I believe you mean Observer instead of Probe (Probe is the basic resource drone). 

To anticipate him on a couple things: 
- I bet he says Ultralisk -- Siege Tank -- Reaver
- Hydralisk -- Vulture (bike) -- Dragoon

My take on a couple others: 
- Fbat has no equivalent, it's just to stop Marines from getting gangraped by Zling rushes early on
- Goliath is because Dragoons and Hydralisks can shoot at air and Vultures can't
- Archons are another answer to Ultralisks because Reavers are weird
- Scourges are for the Zerg to spite the other guys' capital ships with -- "if we can't have any, we won't let you keep them!"