Iron War - Official Thread

[Frostion]

@redrum Well, “Poland” being named “East Prussia” is perhaps an example of a name based on who controlled the territory at the time. I guess a lot of inhabitants of “Transjordan”, “French Indochina” etc. feel that their territories have been given strange names also

[Cernel]

@Frostion So, I know that you (already told me that you) don't have primary focus on historicity; so chances are that you already know what I'm going to say (I infer it also from the fact that you said "small Canadian "oil capital" during WW2"), and decided otherwise, for gameplay reasons, but, since the matter got opened, just fyi, Canada was a small oil producer. In 1939 Canada produced 997 Gg of oil, while Venezuela produced 30,534 Gg, and the US of America produced 171,053 Gg.
So, assuming the ratios being constant from 1939 onwards, if you give 8 Fuel-Barrels to Canada, in total, then you should put about 250 Fuel-Barrels in Venezuela. 1940 shares are fairly similar, but Venezuela goes down some (used 1939 for reliability).
Looking at the game, having between 200 and 300 Fuel-Barrels in total, if one would want to be historical, I think Canada could have only 1 Fuel-Barrel (in Calgary), as that Dominion gave the 0.35% of the world's oil in 1939.

But I see that probably the ratios have been adjusted mainly on gameplay motivations, since Romania gets more oil than Caucasus, and Italy gets as much oil as all the Dutch East Indies (realistically here Italy would have 0 oil, or 1 in Albania, if Romania is 15).

Plus I don't know most of the oil productions after 1940; so it could be that Canada's oil surged at some point, as I see it was over 1% of the world in 1951.

[Black_Elk]

I don't see a good way to model real world resources or production capacity historically in a way that would be accurate while still maintaining gameplay interest. In A&A the attempt to hold onto IPCs as strictly corresponding to real-world manpower/production capacity usually just resulted in less dynamic play patterns. The best you can do is try to give a little nod to areas that were major production or resource centers, but trying to be in anyway exact about the numbers is tough because it would immediately disadvantage the Axis team out of any real shot. So I think the gameplay kinda has to take primacy, suspending disbelief when necessary. I think a historical play pattern (with the appropriate regions being contested, or in-game battles occurring in territories where historical battles took place) is more important than trying to model the historical economy or distribution of resources. So for example, as long as the German player has an incentive to go after Caucasus for the oil, and Russia has an incentive to stop them, then the exact numbers they are fighting over seems less important to me than the fact that at least they are fighting there haha. I think the harder area is usually the Pacific, where you'd like to get Japan and the Allies doing the tango in the East/South Pacific, with some island hopping instead of the traditional center crush, but historically that contest wasn't driven as much by resources/production as it was logistics (for air bases or naval supplies lines and such.) I think in that case, its important to think of the PUs as abstract, so you can justify making some of those islands contested targets. Okinawa I think would be a good candidate.

For the overall balance by teams, think the last build of the map is probably Allied advantage in some areas (like Africa/Middle east) and Axis advantage in others (like vs India, and the minor Pacific powers.) Losing the British fleet out the gate was a goof on my part in the first game with redrum, otherwise I think you'd see a more serious press vs Germany/Italy.

In choosing a target I think its gotta be easier for the Allies to coordinate on the European side of the board than it is on the Pacific side, (right now it feels like USA only has enough PUs to go seriously in one direction.) I guess whether India survives or not probably has to do with how successful Russia is vs the Near East, or whether Iraq/Iran can clip the British-India starting transport (since I don't think they have any real shot defending against a press from 2 directions overland while still covering the amphibious threat). They definitely feel like a lone soldier with a big bright target painted on their back. I'm not sure how much French-Colonies/Anzac/KNIL can do to help prop them up and the USA is pretty far away, so I think it's kind down to Russia to cover their rear.

I think you could up the starting income/resources for most nations by a pretty considerable amount and it would not be overly distorting, so long as there is parity between the two main teams. Right now I feel like most nations are just too cash strapped to have many interesting build options, so I would suggest picking a reasonable amount and upping it for everyone across the board. Every faction should have some variety to their build options on the first turn, but right now most of the smaller nations barely have enough to field a couple infantry hitpoints initially, and after that, a lot of times they are left with a remainder that can't be spent for several rounds.

[Black_Elk]

Just to elaborate on the remainder issue. Lets say you have a smaller nation (land focused) that ends up with a remainder somewhere between 1-7 with no steel to spare, after they buy an infantry unit or two. Basically you often have to save the remaining cash for next round sometimes like a third of your total, since there isn't anything to spend it on.

I think that's where the aid phase should come into play. Everyone should have an option to send like 5 PUs to someone else, (ideally 2 nations so there is a strategic dimension to the choice) that way the remainder can be put to work. Maybe it makes sense to have a spread...

Send 2 PU
Send 3 PUs
Send 5 PUs

I think something like that would solve the purchasing issue for most nations. The goal then would be to shuffle the pocket change around, to try and get the remainder somewhere that it can be spent in the current round. The larger nations don't suffer from this issue as much because they have larger totals and thus more ways to work out the purchase remainder, but for the smaller nations its a constant dilemma.

[Cernel]

@Black_Elk This would be a feature request, but a way to mostly solve this long standing distortion (and realistic nonsense) of deciding your purchase on how you can puzzle out the options, so to use more (possibly all) of your resources (that it is not really fun or interesting, especially in the moment you may want to lose a lot of time in forecasting what will be your future resources, and save now to buy what you want tomorrow (very tiresome, and very annoying if you end up short of 1 PUs on what you need, for not having calculated it correctly or at all)), could be that you can buy undercost for a chance of getting what you want, with the possibility of going in deficit (under 0 PUs or whatever). For example, if something costs 10, you can spend 6 and roll on a 60% to get it or not. If you get it, you actually spend 10, possibly going at -4 if you spend all you had. If you don't get it, you get back the 6 you spent (for either spending it the next turn or financing other partial purchases that may have succeeded, at the same time). On the long run, beside being killed while having a passive (and of course the opponent should not capture negative PUs!), there are no bonus or malus, as you always need to spend the full amount, eventually. Of course, it may be opportune limiting it to spending like at least half the value or so (roll at 50% or more only).

[Cernel]

@redrum My preference would actually be no names default but a quick key for showing them up for a limited time, like when highlighting units.

I mean only for the maps that decide to hide all or some of them. The maps having all land and sea zones displayed would not have the key (but that's rare, as almost all maps hide the sea zone names), and anyways that key would change nothing for what is displayed permanently (for example, using it in WAW would add only the sea zone names for a few seconds). Then there would be the problem of those maps that have names in the graphic, practically getting duplication, but that is not really supposed to be the way (tho doing it with the territory_names folder is far from handy).

[Frostion]

@Black_Elk There is no version 0.2.7 download from github/ingame. For the latest few changes you will have to download the XML in zip in post 442.

[Black_Elk]

Yeah I was messing about with 0.2.7 just now vs Hard AI Axis at 125%, using the stable build. I think its looking good so far. I like the tweaks to the airbase (makes the greenland thing the obvious choice again) and I think Australia might be more interesting now, at least more tempting for Japan. Still think something for the Near East would be helpful though. I feel like that area is kinda do or die for whoever comes out on top. Anyhow, the Germans are pressing pretty hard, I gave them the script and then let the machine take over. They took a nice hit on Leningrad to open things up for their team, but Allies are neck deep in the oil hehe

0_1542702812380_elk vs hardAI Axis 125 German open 1 British India round 4.tsvg

[redrum]

@Frostion Oh, one UI thing that would be good to improve is the minimap settings. TWW and BFA added customization settings and it makes the minimap much more useful. Here are the settings you can use: https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/887/mini-me-map-options

You probably want something close to what TWW uses: https://github.com/triplea-maps/total_world_war/blob/master/map/map.properties

[Frostion]

@redrum I will take a look at how TWW minimap looks in Iron War. Maybe it will improve. But I am kind of a traditionalist, and I like the simplicity of a plain white line border highlight, just like in the minimaps of Warcraft 3, StarCraft, Company of Heroes and Age of Empires.

Good luck with the Allies Go and force some liberty and freedom upon those authoritarian Axis troublemakers

[redrum]

@Frostion Leaving the simple white viewer box is probably fine. I was getting more at the unit square size being decreased and maybe a bit of saturation for the territories. It also might be a good idea to make the sea color a bit lighter for the minimap so units contrast a bit more.

[Black_Elk]

OK so for a German opener that puts as much support to the Middle East as possible, maybe something like this...?

0_1543008653010_Axis opener max Iran support.tsvg

A reasonably successful result in the Ukraine battle (9-10 units remaining on average) then landing the aircraft in Balkans. Flying them over to Iran on G2 for the extra defensive pips. I guess if you really wanted, by sacrificing another mech or inf unit instead of the air-transport you could grab an additional hitpoint, depending on how the first round of combat goes, but the Ukraine fight is kinda narrow.

I don't know what the best build would be for this kind of play. Spending 20 on aid to Iraq/Iran has me feeling that it might be a little hard to justify the factory in East Prussia during the first round (maybe better to wait till G2?). I kinda feel like transport capacity might be a better use of the cash, so you can shift units from Western Europe back over to the Russian front as quickly as possible, while still giving the fleet a bit more coverage in subsequent rounds. Not sure if its worth taking Benelux for the SS/3 PUs, but I opted not to in this example.

Ideally Balkans clears the Russian black sea cruiser on their opening turn, or failing that Germany just risks the fly over to Iran on G2. Enough to deter the Russian attack for another round? Its a pretty large initial commitment... 20 PU's in direct aid, and 70 more in starting aircraft TUV. I suppose if Russia doesn't come heavy, you can always leave the fighters in Europe. Sort of telegraphs Axis intentions, but its really all I got right now for the Iran situation.

If the Italian transport in Mombasa sea zone survives, and isn't blocked by the British-Colonies fleet in the Gulf of Aden sea zone, then you could get 3 Italian hitpoints to Iran as well, but that seem pretty unlikely. For some reason I thought Italy had an option to send direct aid as well, but not the case. So I think it's kind of up to Germany if the Iran stack is going to hold vs an initial Russian press.

Is this sort of what you had in mind Frostion?

[Black_Elk]

Looking at it further, I don't think Iraq can afford to go all in on the Iran defense without dropping below 50/50 vs a British-Colonies push out of Transjordan. Seems like even with the 10 PUs in aid from G, and 2 Italian fighters supporting, they'd still need to leave behind like 3 hitpoints or risk getting totally blasted by British-Colonies.

If Russia buys another transport for the Caspian (and Iran can't do much to stop the blitz out of Aktobe), things could get dicey. Depends if the Russians drop their fighter down in range, or if they buy any attack aircraft at Stalingrad.

Looking at a likely force in Iran of something like...

11 Inf, 1 artillery, 1 aagun, 3 light tanks, 1 medium tank, 4 fighters and a bomber at the end of G2.

I think Russia can still beat that if they make a Caspian transport buy, shift some units from central Russia down to fill the transports, leaving a slot or two open at Stalingrad to build dive bombers. If they buy a second transport Russia has something like... 17 inf, 1 aa, 4 mobile art, 3 mech, 1 fighter available in the area.

Iran can deal with that, but depending on what sort of build the Soviets make in the Caspian, sometimes just a single extra Russian dive bomber is enough to push it over 50%. 2 dive bombers can get it up to 85% odds to the attacker. Or Russia could conceivably buy a 3rd transport. Least if I'm punching the numbers into the calc correctly, seems like Iran has no chance without German air, and a pretty tough time even with it. Taking Western Turkistan to block the mobile units from Aktobe might be a requirement for Iran to survive. But I'm not sure then what the likely spread would be if Iran peels off units for that, since Russia can still deliver a lot onto the Iran factory tile.

[Black_Elk]

If complex fighter transits are the play, kind of wondering if maybe Balkans should have them as a build option from the outset? For the Romanian airforce? Even one IAR 80 might be cool, just so they have something to bounce around with from the get go. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAR_80

"Interwar Period

During the interwar period, the RoAF, second only to Poland among the future Warsaw Pact countries, had a powerful national aircraft industry which designed and produced all types of military and most civil aircraft. In particular, the IAR 80 series were stressed-skin fighters, worthy to rank with the other single-seat fighters of WWII, and used in significant numbers on the Eastern Front.

The RoAF was reorganized during an 18-year period. Over 2,000 military and civil aircraft were built in Romania, based on local and licensed foreign designs. The military aviation used IAR 80 fighters, which became famous on the Eastern Front, and bombers manufactured by IAR Braşov. Messerschmitt Bf 109 and Heinkel He 112 fighters, Heinkel He 111 and Junkers Ju 88 bombers, Junkers Ju 87 dive bomber, Junkers Ju 52 transport and Heinkel He 114 seaplanes were purchased from Germany in the interwar period.

World War II

When Romania, allied with Nazi Germany, went to war against the USSR on June 22, 1941, the Romanian Air Force had 621 airplanes, including its locally made fighter IAR 80/81. The air force accomplished hundreds of missions, contributing to Romania's recapture of Northern Bucovina and Basarabia, which had been occupied by the Soviet Union a year earlier. Until the Odessa episode, the Romanian military fighters gained 661 air victories. Romanian Military Aviation fought on the Eastern front until August 22, 1944, bringing an important contribution to the great battles in Stalingrad, Crimea, and the Ukrainian fronts. Between 1941-1944, Romanian aircraft won 2,000 air victories. The most famous flying aces were Captain Prince Constantin Cantacuzino, who gained 68 certified victories, Captain Horia Agarici and Captain Alexandru Şerbănescu, who shot down 60 enemy airplanes."

[Black_Elk]

Here's a first round Solitaire showing some ideas for Russia vs Iran. I just made the moves for everyone for the first round trying to put everyone in a reasonable position of strength.

In this case Germany didn't commit the extra 10 PUs to the Shah, so Russia went balls to the wall for max attack power onto the Iranian factory. With this sort of build in the Caspian I'm not sure what Iran can do. I put max defense for Iran otherwise (if German air comes over) but the battle is still in the mid 70% range. What do you think?

To take Western Turkistan and block the mobile units at Aktobe on the first turn, is a major do or die for Iran. If they try and fail then Iran is doomed for sure, but I don't know if its better to attempt that attack or stack defense with everything and hope for a 1/3 shot of beating back the Russians if they go all in. The extra dude in Persia (from German aid) drops the odds a little and might be a necessity on G1, but still not pushing it below 50% advantage to the Soviets.

Support from Italy would push it out of range (with 3 hitpoints from east Africa), but I just can't imagine the Allied player letting the Italian Mombasa sz transport get that far, since it can be blocked at Aden by a British-Colonies ship or killed outright by South Africa's fighter before Italy's first turn.

Anyhow, this is the Persian dilemma...

0_1543384051544_Iron War Solitaire Germany round 2.tsvg

Kind of a standard script for the rest of the gang. I had Italy try for Gibraltar just as a change of pace, since we went with the Egypt stack. To my mind it seems viable if Britain parks their fighter to defend the straits, to try and pick it off and land in pro-Axis Spain. Maybe sets up a trade to try and knock off those French and British Colonies units from west Africa before they can stack too deep as a team with a bunch of Brits and Americans altogether. Kind of a toss up for me whether to stay put in China and fight to the last man, or just bounce from the factory altogether to try and draw things out, I decided to bounce. But otherwise tried to swing it more-or-less conservative for both sides, since Russia was going all hellraiser hehe. I probably could have left 3 or 4 more hitpoints in Leningrad instead of Central Russia to keep it on the safe side, but thought it might be interesting to see how the AI handles itself from a position like this.

This was their second round... Saw a few interesting things go down. Russia definitely went for Iran heavy and made a few bold actions in the far east. British-Colonies and Italy are both a bit of a wild card and seem to just attack for the hell of it hehe. Anzac and KNIL struggled a bit to fortify properly, but USA seemed to catch the drift and sent their pacific fighters support KNIL at Sumatra. Some back and forth over Gibraltar and tit for tat elsewhere. All and all most of the minors put up at least a few stalls and went for something in the neighborhood. Even Japan wasn't terrible, though there game always falls apart with transports, they at least got the job done on the mainland. Reasonably impressed with the machine's showing here.

0_1543386696267_Iron War Elk German Solo vs Hard AI Allies Germany round 3.tsvg

[Frostion]

Here is a new Iron War update.
It is hopefully soon downloadable via in game from GitHub.
Alternatively, this is the advanced user light download of v0.2.8: 0_1543450033891_v028.zip

v0.2.7 to v0.2.8:
• 3 USSR Infantry units starting out in Siberia have been moved 1 territory away, in three directions, so that they cannot be used to “rush” Iran.
• Territory name change from “Saskatchewan” to “Winnipeg”.
• Territory name change from “Wabakimi” to “Port Arthur”.
• Territory name change from “Victoria” to ”Vancouver”.
• Changed minimap look (smaller units, brighter territories and brighter viewer).
• ANZAC Fuel barrels in Sydney changed from 3 to 2.
• ANZAC Fuel barrels in South Queensland changed from 2 to 1.
• ANZAC Fuel barrels in Peru changed from 2 to 1.
• USA Fuel barrels in Colombia changed from 5 to 3
• USA Fuel barrels in Venezuela changed from 15 to 7
• Italy Fuel barrels in Italy changed from 3 to 5.
• German Fuel barrels in Romania changed from 15 to 12
(Total fuel change: Allies -13 and Axis -1)

@Black_Elk USSR can still bring a lot of units to Iran, but now it should be 3 less if Iran is attacked in round 2. If the Allies goes all in, they should still be able to take Iran and Iraq with ease, but I hope it will then also have a bit of consequence elsewhere, since a lot of units will be allocated to do this.If an attack on Iran turns out to be the only sensible and good strategy, then more nerfing of USSR starting units should be in order

I actually also, when I made the Iron War units and pictures, thought of using the local Romanian IAR 80 fighter model for Romanian fighters. Then Romania could start out with planes on the map in 1940. But I ended up just choosing the German model as with all the other German minors. In part because the Romanian fighters were gradually replaced by German models during the war. And it seemed to be the logical and easy choice.

[Frostion]

[Black_Elk]

Looks good, will try this for the next one. The Iranian rush in round 2 was fairly narrow so I think the reduction in offensive hitpoints for Russia may be enough to table it till at least round 3/4. I think its for the best since a major naval build in the caspian as part of the Russian script was kinda oddball. I can still see a cruiser to help that transport from getting picked off, and maybe a transport expansion in round 2, but least the Soviets won't feel such a pressing need to race down there for a round 2 hit.

Anzac may feel the burn a bit with less oil on hand. I think Britain will have to send something in later rounds to keep their fighters from being grounded, but seems workable.

Going to check it out when I get back home later.

best,
Elk

[redrum]

@Frostion So here is my thoughts after playing 2 PBF games, 1 on each side:

Overall

• Its a fun map to play and many of the new mechanics like fuel, multiple resources, targeted attacks, aid, etc give it some uniqueness
• The balance is within reason and I was able to win as each side. Though it generally felt easier to win as the Allies but I think a poor G1 in that game had some influence on that
• Most of the nations feel fun to play and that they can accomplish something besides maybe South Africa, Iran, and Iraq which are pretty limited
• The aid is a cool feature and in some cases forces tough decisions on where to focus resources. But there are also a number of no brainer decisions like USA pretty much always giving aid to USSR and China which seem stale
• Oil feels important and I find myself thinking about trying to optimize its usage as well as capturing more
• Iron feels a bit underwhelming and besides needing it for building ships for a few nations could probably not exist and it wouldn't make much difference. It really ends up just being a cap on how many ships naval oriented nations can build.
• Colonial/SS feel a bit lacking as well especially cause they are spread out so much over the map and really just end up using it to build a unit here and there when you have enough. Doesn't really add much depth to the game.
• Round by round advances are kind of cool but don't seem that important at least in the first 6 rounds (didn't make it any further)
• VCs are pretty well balanced and actually seem to align fairly well to when the game is over for one side
• Factory system is pretty unique and seems to work fairly well. I think the only thing I'd consider is maybe adding a few more 5+ territories to the map
• Some cool units but some of them feel too similar especially 2 move land units: SP-Art and all tank types feel very redundant just slightly different cost and slightly weaker/stronger. Would be great to see more uniqueness across units and consider making the targeted attacks of AA, AT, etc stronger as 1/10 is kind of weak.

Units

• Fighters/Dive-Bombers - overpowered, tend to see a ton of these built as they provide great flexibility and high attack/defense, pretty cheap and cost no iron, probably should make them either weaker or most expensive
• Mech-Inf - overpowered, I tend to build a lot of these as for +2PU/+1Iron more than a Inf they have 2 movement and give +1 move to an Inf/Art. These tend to be a much better investment then almost all the other 2 move land units as you have a lot of inf/art. These should probably cost more or only be able to land transport during NCM.
• Inf/Art/AA - balanced, seem to be about the right cost and I tend to mix these
• Naval units - balanced, pretty balanced across the board, I find myself building a mix of them
• Tank-Destroyer - most balanced 2 move unit, this is a solid unit as with its targeted attack it really ends up being 4A/5D for +3PU/+2Iron. Tends to be a bit better then Light-Tank as its 2PU cheaper and about the same strength.
• Tanks - underpowered, tend to cost a lot of iron so can't build many and they really aren't that great. I tend to save iron for ships unless I really just have a bunch extra. Fighters/Dive-Bombers tend to be better even for the PU cost as they are only a bit more and have much greater flexibility.
• SP-Art - underpowered, pretty much never build these as rather do mech inf for moving regular art or inf around or spend a bit more to get Tank-Destroyers

Fuel
I think our first game was probably a better representation of how fuel would normally play out. In game #2, Italy's fleet got crushed early so has used very little fuel. The Germans have also not moved their fleet much as they got boxed into the Baltic early. Allies fuel usage is probably close to standard except Russia is getting +20 from the Middle East that normally they wouldn't have.

My general feel is something like this:

• Germany & Japan are probably about right in terms of fuel as they tend to have big fleets and usually need to move them around
• Italy has very little fuel and if they maintain their fleet then tend to run out very quickly and absolutely need the Middle East aid
• UK has very little fuel income and rely on US aid
• Russia fuel income is probably about right
• US tends to have a lot of extra fuel but need to give some to UK and UK minors
• Rest of the minors are tough to call as really depends if the survive or expand and what they build

I find myself thinking about fuel fairly often and it ends up depending a lot on if large fleets survive and move around. If fleets are killed or traded then you tend to end up with excess fuel. I probably wouldn't change much except maybe give UK/Italy a bit more and USA a bit less.

[Black_Elk]

I think Redrum's assessment up there is pretty spot on, just a few points that I would piggy back on right now. I actually have a lot of thoughts, but I don't want to bite off more than I can chew.

Steel Units: I also think in many cases the cost here can be prohibitive, its often hard to justify spending 2 steel on a single unit, let alone 3 or 4, so I think you see a spam on the units that only cost 1 (with the exception of critical stuff like transports). I think right now that redrum is right that the main function of steel is to serve as a cap on ships, and transports in particular. I'm not sure the best approach, but I kind of favor a more radical increase in the totals. You can still use the current reserve amounts if you want to cap the number of transports that can be bought in round one, but after that I think the numbers could go up a fair amount. Or I guess you could do the reverse, with a larger starting reserve. I think its tough right now because when I look at 3 steel in the bank, its hard to see how buying 1 medium tank is better than 3 mech. Or on the water if you have 4 steel, its hard to see how a single carrier or battleship is better than 2 transports. Where it just seems really costly at the high end. I think more of a buffer in the totals would help alleviate some of that sense.

Tanks: I can think of several ways that tanks might be made more attractive as a purchase option, but probably the simplest and most interesting would be to just give them the ability to tow an infantry unit along (the way mech does currently.) Tanks should tow, it's the way to go!

One possibility there would be to allow medium or heavy tanks to tow more than 1 infantry unit. So maybe a medium tank can tow 2 dudes, and a heavy tank can tow 3. I think something like that would make them instantly more compelling at purchase and certainly justify the cost in additional steel. It would make the mobile land purchasing calculus a bit simpler too (since you wouldn't always be thinking "why buy anything other than mech?"). I can see it opening up some interesting strategic possibilities in areas where production might be limited, and just making tanks seem all around badass like something you would always consider purchasing if you had sufficient steel to do so.

I thought of other options like hit-absorption or targeting, but honestly the tow thing makes the most sense to me. Because the ability to drag another hitpoint into the fight is always going to be more powerful than pretty much any other ability a unit might have. Sure doing this would make mech less unique, but I don't really see that as a problem. Mech has been way overpowered ever since it was introduced into A&A, and I think the best way to bring the tank back into the forefront of purchasing is to just make them a better version of the land-transport than mech.

That way players would really look at all tanks, but especially Medium and Heavy tanks as "break out" units that you really have to keep an eye on. And it would make the tank destroyer and dive bomber that much more formidable as units that can take tanks out of play.

Maybe all mobile ground should tow infantry, and then use other abilities/costs to differentiate the various mobile units from standard mech. Otherwise I think mech will just always be better.