fair enough. I agree with the fact that small scale strategies are pointless in ps2. In this game i feel like people should (and do) go with the flow . The point that i am trying to empathize is : is an eldar zerg even possible ? i mean , one of the thing i fear the most right now is the great overpop space marines will probably possess. How could the eldar force stop the rolling stone that a space marine zerg will probably be , if they are forced to confront them heads on?

My usual response to this is that we really, really need an RTS overhead for commanders. That's something PS2 doesn't have, and I'm finding myself stating it all over the place as a sort of tactical cure-all to PS2's woes. It probably wouldn't actually fix everything, but I do think it would help a lot. Making the job of leading easier could cause more people to actually try and lead, and if it was combined with a simple sign-up system where players can pick a regional commander to follow for their session, we might see a lot of improvement over the statistically emergent behavior that dominates PS2.

As far as Eldar stopping SM, what that requires is a campaign rewards system not based on territory, and more goals than simple domination. If Eldar had special objectives that required a fast vehicle entry behind enemy lines to swiftly destroy a generator, that would be far better suited to our faction than a mission where we have to besiege an entrenched ork base until we can overwhelm it through numbers. Hell, it wouldn't even have to be specific to us, just a greater proportion of those kinds of missions than for the other races. Those kinds of objectives, mixed with a dedicated band of player commanders, would let a coordinated Eldar force backstab and counter even the most massive emergent SM zergs.