No, it amounts to using a different metric value instead of power. If I'd said "people haven't used the late-game units, so they're not voting for them since they don't know if they're good or not," that would be voting out of ignorance. But that's a quantum leap from what I said I believe is the case: people are going to vote for the unit that they get the most use out of, which is inherently going to be earlier units. That's not ignorant.
There's an element of ignorance in it (and "ignorance" not in the derogatory "yer stoopit" sense, but in the "lack of information" sense.)
If you don't get to the unit (and just as importantly, its upgrade) until your games are essentially won or actually over, like I said - you're not going to get the visceral "feel" for the unit's power. A unit doesn't operate in a vacuum - if you bump into Zeros at the very end of your game while Japan is going down the tubes, they won't make much of an emotional impact on you. You'll likely have Jet Fighters, you'll (as you said) easily be able to resource-starve them, and they won't have a support infrastructure to protect (which is their whole reason for being).
You might intellectually appreciate their benefit, but you won't experience all the implications. (I'm having a hell of a time dealing with the Japanese Navy right now, because I can't strip their DD screen with planes off my Aircraft Carriers or even my land-base air force, meaning I can't use my submarines effectively, meaning I can't use the subs to deal with these new heavy Battleships I just rolled up.)
Substitute "
lack of experience with the unit in a meaningful situation" with "ignorance", again, I do think we're saying the same thing.
The question is whether/how much we should weight play style in evaluating these units, and that wasn't clearly defined before the poll started. It's okay.
And it's only natural that after 50 turns of routinely destroying Jaguar-upgraded Mech Infantry with late-game air units, I'm going to have a different view of how good they are.
