I think Ill comment on that sentence by sentence, but not as a rant just as sort of a juxtaposition between what they say and what they actually achieved

1.”If you think of modern warfare you dont think of blocks of troops, you think of people dispersing as much as possible[…]” – You have to stay in a max distance of 5″ to the leader and 1″ to another model of your unit which is kind of piled up

2.a “I mean what you are talking about really is scalability” – Yes it is kind of scalable because when it comes down to the game no matter how much figures you have its actually not a mass miniature based game ( meaning that each miniature counts) but a profile based one where only the profile is important. Because in the end if you have 100 miniatures ( split up into lets say 10 units a 10 men ) or if you have 10 miniatures ( split up into two teams ) you dont actually play with 100 minis what you do is that you almost play with just 10 ( some exceptions from that rule yeah I give you that ) the leaders of the unit and actually that is the problem ( I know I mentioned it before but I wanted to respond to this video specifically ) …it is scalable because it doesnt really matter that you have more miniatures on the board! as it will always come down to a single profile per unit that could easily be represented by just one figure personal profile. If this is for good or for bad is up to you .

2.b “You pile damage on units until they dissolve” which basically means: besides influencing the nerve test damage actually has no effect on the unit or its effectiveness on the field , its ( the damage) basically just sitting there in the back until it really kicks in and the whole unit is gone at once. which once again means …you could represent the whole unit – that uses one static profile – by one figure.

3.”a unit fights a unit [speaking of close combat]” – so even in close combat its still one profile and you only need to get one model into contact and the rest just moves up , it doesnt matter WERE in that combat your special weapons are or where your guys stand, which models they have in contact and whatnot – again you could just resolve this with just one model.

some quotes that stand out for me
Allessio:
“Actually there are no individual modells[…]” – see point 2.a
“You never remove things” – see point 2.a and 2.b

to solve your heavier weapon problem : just DONT make it possible to stick a heavy weapon in every unit, so that it is clearly separated in those that hunt down tanks (maybe in even smaller units containing just a leader and a weapon – a “weapon team” one would say, and yes that would expose them to fire but that is the same in real war you try to take out the anti tank weapons first and youll shoot at them if you can spot them) and those that fight infantry. Combined with your rules of LOS of vehicles …I mean that they cant just shot in every direction because they have a certain direction they are facing (which I think are just the right thing to do ! so huzzah for that ! ) that would be a relatively realistic scenario – because you anti infantry guys would have to protect your heavy weapons guys against enemy infantry, whilst they try to sneak up to a tank and shoot him from an angle he is not facing at.

so these are my two cents and again I am not ranting or trolling, I am just pointing out. Hopefully impartial enough. And yes I promise, this will be the last time I emphasize this whole “you-can-play-this-with-one-model-instead-of-an-unit”-thing. It just really bothers me because I am not sure if we need another game that is fast and easy, I would rather like to have a game that is tactically really challenging but in a big scale ( I know its a herculean task to come up with something like this ^^but: GO ALESSIO GO ! ) and I somehow hoped for warpath to be this game 🙁

so long
Seb