That’s pretty much the point I was trying to make in the latter half of my post. Ultimate Ascent was not so simplistic so that “one sort” of alliance could always beat “another sort” of alliance. For example, a team of 3 cycling robots could not always beat an full-court shooter, which could not always beat a floor pickup, which could not always beat a 50-point climber, which could not always beat the 3 cycling robots, etc. The successful alliances - as we saw repeatedly at IRI and on Einstein - had to change their strategy each match in order to win. (If you want more match examples I’m happy to provide.)
I think the very fact that we are still discussing the nuances of strategy in 2013 is a testament to how great the game was. I admit that I haven’t been in FRC for very long compared to many, but from the games I have experienced, 2013 was one of the most complex (in terms of strategy), exciting (in terms of audience appeal) and challenging (in terms of engineering) challenge the GDC has given us. So, I stand by 2010-2013.