I think Spyda just approaches war with a different set of tactics and expectations than you do.

But don't let me interrupt. This is one of the best conversations yet. Keep discussing!

Again... You're thinking in mass numbers.

Of course 3 full armies would take out 30 squads of tanks.

That again is 3 on 1. 30 squads is one mans army. All of your examples use overwhelming force on one side. And if the plan is to simply outnumber your opponent choose whatever chassis you want and boost.

5000 Vehicle Explosive Armor * For all noobs reading WORST possible set up to fight infantry* beats 500 infantry beam range/armor mix *Again for the noobs BEST possible set up for fighting Vehicles*. But that doesn't make it superior. or a good build. It just makes it a one-sided extremely advantageous battle for the guy who thought building only armor was a good idea.

My example gives one player the ability to hold 2 at bay. Meaning that 3 or 4 guys could with proper tactics hold off an entire alliance. (Since no intelligent alliance attacks with every single squad), but you can defend with all your might. And if jams, nukes, and spys are implemented they could possibly fend off the attack by themselves or even destroy the enemy.

Everyone approaches battle differently, and what happens if your all infantry army runs into an army that's 85% Tanks with Concussion. (And that's not an unthinkable scenario, since by that time the fact that your using all infantry will be well known) Toast. Nothing you can do about it.
(Unless you outnumber them 3 to 1 too.)

Regardless of the opponent or what they choose or how they set up with a mixed chasis army you can at least hold them off while you build what's necessary to destroy them.

I can only say for what's worked for me in the past I've never been in a single unit alliance. I plan to try it in the next era I play with some other people. But it occurs to me... If I KNOW someones ALWAYS going to pick rock, I'd have to be a fool not to pick paper. So exactly how dumb must i think everyone else in that era is, if i believe they won't act and prepare accordingly?

I've never come lower than 3rd in a round, and my next one will be my 8th going back to before I stopped playing for 2 years. And currently my "mixed alliance" is in 2nd place and poised for the win in F4.

There's many different approaches to this game, some better than others, some worse, some just different. Regardless of what common knowledge is if you truly wish to excel, and stand above the rest... You have to be willing to do something different that what everyone else is doing, and divert from the beaten path.

I've adopted a mixed chassis strategy but not necessarily because of any of the reasons above. It's just because all my guys are new and they're active and they experiment to find what works best for them. The official type is infantry and we've thrived in major attacks using mostly that, but I have three guys that have 1/3 of their army as cavalry and two that operate alone and use almost exclusively Heavy units. Sure it's a little difficult but I think it makes our alliance a more diverse threat even if it would be a good bit harder to defend against an overwhelming force. In the end though, I'd rather be conquered than loose my units like that.

In the future, I'm sure we'll all have that experimental phase worked out of our system though, and will be able to really make a tactical decision on the matter. This discussion is invaluable in determining these decisions to come.

Another point that affects my judgement....
In my humble opinion, Fantasy has the coolest and most diverse set of units of any of the worlds. This fact alone is enough to make us want to branch out and find reasons to use the bad @ss units not often found in winning armies.

I mean.. Siberian Cave Hamster? Bear Cavalry? FREAKING AWESOME DUDE!

Just curious spyda, when do you see mix chassis being effective, when your res production equals, exceeds or is lower than that of the enemy?

Playing with mixed chassis because some players are only going on solo-action is ok ... but keep in mind that you don't want to have always solo-players on your team if you can help it.

The basic premise of using non-mixed is that, in high level war, there will *always* be huge battles. It is not something you can avoid if both teams are playing well. If you ever tried to avoid big battles at all cost, the enemy would just send 150+ squads right to your relic, take it, and start moving home. At some point, you have to make a stand, or you lose the era. And once that stand is made, mixed armies lose - badly.

And, just looking at what happened in the game: We always won with single chassis armies, and our strongest opponents always had single chassis armies as well. Mixed chassis players never posed a big threat. At least, that is my experience from all the era's we won.

- Xeeron

PS: There is one additional arguement against mixed chassis: You can achieve most of the advantages of mixed chassis, without actually mixing. How? Have your subs and/or allies go a different chassis. That way, all battles you fight will still be single chassis, while your opponents will be attacked by different chassis types.

That's very true. With a sub single chassis is absolutely the way to go. But I've been a main opponent of subs.and as such its necessary to prepare for all kinds of fights.no alliance could just attack a relic that was being protected. They'd come under a nuclear hailstorm. Then chassis doesn't matter at all. Lol they've got to attack other things first.

Actually it excels when you make more but so should most set ups. It's particularly best when it comes to defending. Generally before marching on an enemy hive you know beforehand, and you can just begin building for that in advance with a member or two ready now.
it works in an even situation, but if your resource production is too low stalling your opponent for the amount of time needed to have adequate armies is a problem.

if your in a battle that last more than 2 rounds your doing something wrong.
as far as other body types lose units while tanks lose health at the most you will lose 2 units (inf) or 1 unit (cav) more than you would if its tanks. so that really isnt as big of an advantage as people say it is.

hey man simple thing try the battle simulator and try out tanks vs infantry put infantry 2 times more than tanks and then tree time u will see the difference 30 tanks still beat 90 infantry so they are in conclusion more powerful

tree time?

sorry i meant 3 time not tree typo.