I have to disagree on this. I always found RA2 to be far more balanced toward Allies because in any game I played (admittedly not all that many, probably around 100) Prism Tanks and IFV's were an unstoppable wall of rape. Rhino Tanks and Apocalypse Tanks folded under the rays of the faster and better-ranged Prism Tanks, and super-expensive Kirov Airships simply couldn't go the distance with so much IFV AA-spam ruining the day. Just speaking from experience, although I'm hardly close to anything near 'pro' at RA2. Sure, the Soviets had the early Rhino advantage (Grizzly Tanks weren't worth shit), but Rocketeers and even deployed GI units... arrrgh. Fuck RA2.
/rant
Anyway, as for introducing OpenRA features into RA, I'm not so sure that this will ever be feasible, and not just for coding reasons. I play both, and really, they're far too different now to make any direct and fair comparison. Infantry play a much bigger role in OpenRA already (I actually support this deal), and it's rare that a Tank Rush works any more. Compare this to RA95, where ten WF's and as many tanks as your funding allows seems to be the norm! Unit/Structure production queues? Minor gameplay change that doesn't really give or take an advantage; I'd be all for it. Swapping around who-gets-what and giving units extra function? No. This is where you start fucking with things just that bit too much. Don't get me wrong -- I like OpenRA for being somewhat fresh and attempting to rebalance things without going down the route of "everything for everyone", but for anyone to suggest that RA95 adopts certain things from the project is just insanity.
tl;dr -- some engine tweaks (if possible) are favourable, but changing the core mechanics of how a round unfolds is never going to work or be popular among vets.
