I’ll jump in for rock n roll when it comes to utilizing mech infantry, and it goes beyond attack/defense numbers, punch, and numbers of units.
I frankly couldn’t care less about what is in what stack, and what my opponent bought etc., in relation to the following question:
Am I reacting to them or are they reacting to me? The answer to that question will usually tell you who is winning a game. You can have less units on the board and be making less money and still be winning, if you’re forcing your opponent to react to you.
Mech infantry in and of itself is inferior to artillery in many ways… after all, it’s basically just an infantry on wheels… however! If you use them as a way to maintain an advantage through superior mobility options, you limit how much your opponent can dictate terms to you. I can’t overstate how important this is. Mech Infantry is a tool to help create pressure.
And going back to one of your earlier posts, I would never place armor/mech stacks in position to be killed by infantry in an even swap, unless doing so bought me so much advantage that it was worth it. Armor and mech paired create the ability to exploit weaknesses, by 1) parking themselves in places where they can strike multiple locations, 2) can be used to take and hold ground, or 3) go behind enemy lines to harass and exploit economy and not be subject to a sizable counterattack.
If I can’t slip behind the lines, or would be subject to a sizable counterattack (that didn’t bring me an equally sizable advantage), I would utilize them for options 1) and 2).
Infantry/artillery, by the way, are utterly fantastic and worth every IPC… so I defend your math, and the philosophy behind it. But for me, the infantry/artillery becomes the anvil and the mech/armor becomes the hammer.
Try the mech/armor combo plate! You might just like it.