What is the difference between current T2 balance and SupCom experimentals?

All other things being equal? Yes, the Gunship is a "Better Tank" than your non-flying tank.

yes, t1 units do more damage and health for cost even though every unit is toilet paper, and t2 units are not efficient in dps/hp/cost but do have tools that can snipe. Matter of fact, that may be why pelican was made t2, it has a powerful snipe tool with commander vs commander and with inferno flashfry.

experimentals would be fine if they were even less cost effective and were macro aestetic. I think one could be made that way. However, ta experimental was on the weak side which is better than nothing, supcom every tier was better value than last including experimentals, and I think pa experimental as well as orbitals should have massive health for a minute long fight and do very little damage so it needs to be killed sometime but it has a harder time than a vanguard killing a commander.

the problem with aestetic, is pa is about orbitals and rockets and units massively cooperative in numbers. A single unit replacing an army just cannot happen. Old t2 where you didn't make ants was awful for that exact reason, 10 unit armies made the game feel like Red Alert 3 while we all missed 100 unit armies.

"aestetic" isn't a word and I can't glean its meaning through its use in context. Can you please give me a definition as to what this word means?

Exactly. So why is the monkeylord not just a better tank? Because it's stats are different, especially the cost, making it behave differently. Just like gunships are usually balanced by making them weaker for their flying ability.

It has more raw health, more DPS, more abilities and more defences than any other standard "tank". There is nothing about the Monkeylord that could be considered worse from a purely 1-to-1 unit comparison to any "tank" from previous tech levels. It is the best "tank" that Cybran have.

Cost is not a factor in deciding whether it is "better" or not. Cost is, as I keep having to re-iterate, merely the time and resource investiture that a unit needs to pay off.

Now that may cause you to value its continued existence more, and not throw it suicidally away, but the same can be said for the relationship between a LAB and a T2 assault bot, and between a T2 assault bot and a T3. There's no difference in the fundamental application of the unit, merely the player's investiture into a single unit as opposed to many units. It is a risk based assessment that a player makes at all levels of play. SupCom's Experimentals were merely the most egregious example of the "all eggs in one basket" strategy.

Apart from the fact that cost is not the only differentiation this is a statement that I simply do not agree with.
Cost is quite important for gameplay. Especially the relation between the cost of something and your maximum income is quite important. A single tank can be replaced in less than a second given end game income. A monkeylord in turn cannot.

Why is cost not a deciding factor, and why is an increased time and resource investiture also not a deciding factor in whether something is called better or not?

If I can build an army that destroys your Monkeylord and your base using the same amount of resources, how is the Monkeylord better ?

Not to mention that my army is built in smaller parts (units) that I can already use before the whole army is finished.

I am against experimentals as well, because I want massive armies instead.

But your way of arguing is flawed.

So, the Monkeylord doesn't fit the same "role" as a column of tanks. Is that the major sticking point here?

Yes and no. Surely the monkeylord can replace large chunks of your tank armies. Especially the main attack forces. It however cannot replace your raiding forces. Those need to be able to split up to attack multiple areas at once with weaker attacks. A monkeylord cannot do that. It's a local superpower not a whole army. A perfect example of how a higher tech unit can be better than lower tech units yet not fully replace them. Unless you play on x10 resources ofc.

The monkeylord wasn't confined to being a tank column though. It could outflank due to its stealth and amphibious capability. It could break defensive shield lines that a column of tanks could not. If you desperately want this to be about "cost" then for cost the Monkeylord could not only behave like a tank column, but also as a number of other roles too. It lost its cost efficiency for raiding... but didn't mean that it couldn't do it, just that you would be wasting time using it in that way.

It was better than a tank column in nearly every way... and I'm yet to be convinced that, that single undefended mex is vital enough during most games that simply ignoring it and going for the throat with your Monkeylord or your column of tanks wouldn't be a better idea 99 times out of 100.

The only thing that the column of tanks can do that the Monkeylord can't do that in my eyes has any relevance... is split up, and, as I've said... I don't believe raiding that one outlying mex is that important in the vast majority of games; breaking the defensive line, is.

Thus, in 99 situations out 100, I'd call the ML a "better tank".

Always just going for the main defensive line is a very boring type of gameplay that neither FA nor PA have. FA has it more than PA thanks to FA having t4.

And since the ML can bypass defensive lines thanks to its stealth and amphibious nature... or just bull-rush through it thanks to its high concentration factor of both DPS and health, I call it a "better tank".

Do you see what I'm getting at here? The ML could do almost everything a bunch of tanks could do (and some things they couldn't do)... and usually do it better.

But it cannot raid at all. It only can do a direct hit. It may do so by walking around the main defensive line, but with tanks you can i.e. drop them using transports that can also transport stealth field generators. So both the monkey and the tanks can try to walk around a defensive line. However only the tanks can split up to do multiple attacks. The monkey in turn is better at doing a direct attack, mainly because it focuses so much firepower in a single spot.

That's just not a better tank. It's a whole different class of unit.

*shrug* I'm sorry, but I disagree. It's an inefficient raider for cost because it's a single unit with only 2 ground-to-ground weapons, but it isn't "worse" at it in an absolute sense compared 1-to-1 to any other tank.

Im having trouble with my words.

But say the first role of the tank is to attack enemy tanks? Right? Now if the T2 tank is better then the T1 tank in that regard we can consider it both a direct upgrade to it's first role, and specialised to it without having to be better at the tanks additional roles, like raiding.

So what I mean?....Im not very good with my words, so I might not have explained what I mean even now.

Well About how the T2 tank is better then the T1 tank at it's primary role, but without it being better at the T1 tanks additional roles.

As examples: Taking damage, killing enemy units in straight up battle, attacking defences, would be the roles of both T1 and T2 tanks, but T1 tanks can also conduct raiding attacks, be temporary scouting units and stuff like that.

So it's possible that T1 tanks should have more diversity, rather then making T2 more specialised.

And that is what I feel is what the developers are intending when that say, that there will be some direct upgrades.

If you do not look at the price and the intended usage sure it is not. But by ignoring those values you can as well say a gunship is a better tank.

Assume experimentals are in PA. Wouldn't the main difference be that you can win outright or secure a good position early on with T1 tanks, but you can't possibly do that with an experimental due to the amount of time it takes to tech up and eco up? Sorta like how you can sure win a game by securing a moon and using halleys... but you can also win a with early raiding to secure a lead and/or using terrestrial units.

Looking at it this way I have to agree that an experimental like the one your guys are describing can only be called an upgraded tank if you sort of cherry pick the traits you want to compare. Big picture, it's a completely different way to win a game, somewhere between using T2 units and smashing a planet.

Do you guys think that the prevalence of nukes in PA makes experimentals a bit obsolete since you can just nuke em from anywhere on a planet?

Been there. Done that. Got the T-shirt. One sheller vs the world. The world lost, bro.

Do you really want to argue based on rare exceptions that were probably based on either stupid unit ai, stupid pathfinding or not so intelligent commands given by the player?