@frimmel:
It is a game of attrition.
You must maximize your economic advantage by inflicting greater losses than you suffer by choosing favorable battles. You take territory and thus gain more economic advantage.
It isn’t an either/or proposition. It is also a bit of a chicken or the egg paradox.
Which came first? Choosing a favorable battle or economic advantage?
I completely agree here. However I think it is important to keep in mind that the loss of a capital is denying a entire nation its income, indefinitely(hopefully). that’s why the battles seem more important because all the economic weight is placed in one place. A lot easier to blow a bank up than to individually rob people. Another important party in the economics of it is Time.(projection power). if you’re marching to moscow the troops in Germany are no help to you this turn. So this is my argument to do with tanks. Tanks essentially increase your tempo by 1. Tanks are important buys offensively because of the tempo and the fact infantry are for defence.(as pointed out already). Call me old school but I remember this article on yahoo.(Caspian sub???) it talked about skew and shields. infantry cost less so they have to die before the more costly units. (why i would prefer any day 5 inf and 1 tank to 4 tanks)
So really I think this game comes down to maximizing available force. (increasing income, killing units and defending your own units both directly and indirectly)