@Cmdr:
I can agree with number 2. Personally, I dont see why we need mechanized infantry to begin with, all infantry are mechanized! It’s not like you have a battalion of soldiers with no jeeps, no halftracks, no duece-and-halfs, no silversides, no cattlecars, etc, etc, etc. What makes one more mechanized than the other? As for blitzing with tanks, is that not just soldiers jumping on the tank and riding along?
Actually, this is why I like the idea of the 2 types of infantry and the extra cost of the mech. As I said earlier, the USA and Commonwealth were the only 2 that pulled it off. The Germans were next, but a very distant runner up. Most of their infantry units relied on horses. It just doesn’t look that way as the wartime propoganda films always followed the tanks and panzer grenadiers (mech inf). Italy was supplied with captured French trucks and Opel Blitz by the Germans to supplement their low production, yet they were never able to fully motorize in Africa or Russia and they never even tried elswhere. China had 300 divisions, only one was motorized. Japan only had 2 tank divisions and used motorized transport for supply except on rare occasions.
It adds a splash of historical flavor, because it translates well in game terms. The USA can easily afford it, and Britain too, once the US is there to help them (but both have the option of cheaper leg units if things don’t go well). Germany buys a decent sprinkling of them and everyone else gets the odd one when they are able to justify it.