with an attacking bonus you can win with conscripts against tanks
That sentence might have been a bit unclear from my side, sorry. I meant that IF tanks would have a skill that made them immune to small arms fire and melee weapons, THEN they would not be able to win. I know that conscripts can win against tanks in todays game, they even have a bonus against them, and that makes absolutely no sence at all, because they have just ordinary rifles, not any AT equipment at all.
and will be funny if you give each unit 2 other enemies who can't attack them
Why would it?
If you read my response 2 steps posts back, then I just gave an example of why it wouldn't be impossible to win.
Tell me, have you ever heard of paper-rock-scissors? If you would choose rock every single time, would you also complain that its impossible to win? And that is exactly what I'm trying to say here. Being able to rofl-stomp all units with one single type of unit is not fun at all, that's what makes it really boring. In a strategy game you're supposed to counter different threats with different counters.
If your enemy has 8 tanks in his defence, you simply don't use rifles. If your enemy has 8 helicopters, you simply don't use artillery. And what if we don't know what our enemy has? Well now we're starting to touch the entire purpose of a strategy game: We combine multiple units to in order to counter multiple kinds of threats. The term "combined arms" is known in strategy games for a reason
Just one more thing
There's so much talk of how that wont work, that wont be balanced etc etc. But think about this. In reality, artillery can't be used against helicopters/jets. Rifles can't be used against tanks. Imagine now, that if all these statements that "it wont work", "it will be op", would our reality work as well then? If helicopters where OP, all nations would ONLY use helicopters. If tanks where OP, all nations would ONLY use tanks. But it's not like that; because everything (so far) has a counter. And that can also be reflected in a game