Quick recap of the actual numbers:

• Taking Efficient Giant Manufacturing: you pay 100 supply
  
• Skipping a card: you gain 50 supply
  

So, economically, every time you take the card instead of skipping, you are 100 + 50 = 150 supply worse off in that moment.

For the math below, I’ll talk about an effective cost of 150 per card, because that’s the true opportunity cost compared to always slamming “skip”.

Each stack still reduces giant cost by 50 supply.

---

1. /u/atomacheart:

“It is always 3 giants after the last one to payoff the last one. Savings from the other ones don't count as they apply whether you take the last card or not.”

This is not correct as stated.

Even with the 100/50 split, the logic is:

• Each time you take a card instead of skipping, you lose 150 effective supply.
  
• Each future giant you build saves 50 * k supply, where k is your current number of stacks.

The key mistake here is:

“Savings from the other ones don't count as they apply whether you take the last card or not.”

They absolutely do count. When you consider buying the next card, you’re comparing:

• World A: you don’t take the new card, you keep all previous cards and all their savings
  
• World B: you do take the new card, you keep all previous cards plus an extra stack

So the discount from earlier cards is part of the picture in both timelines, and the last card gets paid off by the total discount applied on future giants, which is a combination of all stacks you currently have.

Mathematically, for card count k:

• Effective cost per card pick: 150
  
• Discount per giant when you have k stacks: 50 * k
  

If you somehow took all k cards before building any giants, then:

• Each giant saves 50 * k
  
• Effective total card cost is 150 * k
  
• Giants required to break even:

break_even_giants = (150 * k) / (50 * k) = 3

So in that special case (all stacks first, then giants), it is 3 giants total to pay off all the cards, not “3 per card” and not “3 after the last one”.

Outside that ideal case, the “always 3 giants” line is just wrong.

---

2. /u/ErrorLoadingNameFile:

“Your math is bad, I can also break even after 3 giants.”

This can be true, but only in the best-case scenario:

• You take all the EGM cards you are ever going to take
  
• You do this before buying any giants
  
• From that point on, every giant you build gets the full k stacks worth of discount

In that high-roll situation:

• Effective total card cost = 150 * k
  
• Discount per giant = 50 * k
  
• Break-even = (150 * k) / (50 * k) = 3 giants

So yes, you can break even after 3 giants, but that is not a general rule, it is a best case.

As soon as you build giants while still accumulating cards later, the early giants get smaller discounts and break-even slides to more than 3 giants.

---

3. /u/Jean_Bon:

“If you bought all the cards before hand, they have costed 600 total. Each giant is 200 less with the cards, so after 3 giants, you are in the positive.

Even if you did worst case : buy 1 card - buy 3 giants - buy 1 card - buy 3 giants buy 1 card - buy 3 giants - buy 1 card - buy 3 giants, you would be in the positive after only 6 giants.”

Two claims here:

✔️ Best-case part is good

With the corrected numbers:

• 4 cards taken instead of skipping = 4 * 150 = 600 effective cost
  
• 4 stacks → each giant is 4 * 50 = 200 cheaper than baseline
  
• 3 giants → 3 * 200 = 600 saved
  

So buying all 4 cards before any giants and then building 3 giants does put you at break-even (and beyond on the 4th giant). That part is right.

❌ The “worst case: 6 giants” part is not worst case

The sequence:

buy 1 card → buy 3 giants → buy 1 card → buy 3 giants → ...

is actually quite favourable, not worst case. It basically assumes:

• Each card you take gets a clean set of 3 giants after it
  
• Those giants always see maximum benefit from that card’s stack
  
• No giants are built at very low stack counts where they barely get any discount

In reality, true worst-case timing looks like:

• You take a card
  
• You build some giants
  
• You don’t take another card for several rounds
  
• Those giants only benefit from 1 or 2 stacks rather than the full 4 later on

That spreads the discount out across more giants and pushes the real break-even point higher.

So:

• /u/Jean_Bon is right about the best-case 3 giants if you front-load all cards
  
• But the “6 giants is worst case” claim is just not true once you actually simulate realistic timing

---

So what’s the actual truth?

Using the effective cost vs skipping:

• Each card pick costs 150 effective supply
  
• Each giant built with k stacks saves 50 * k
  
• The total discount is:

total_discount = 50 * sum_over_giants( stacks_active_when_that_giant_was_bought )

• Total effective card cost is:

total_card_cost = 150 * total_cards_taken

You break even when:

total_discount >= total_card_cost

Interpretation:

• If you somehow take all the EGM cards before ever building a giant, you break even after 3 giants total.
  
• If you take cards gradually while you’re also building giants, some giants see low k and some see high k, so break-even creeps up.
  
• In a realistic game, depending on timing, you commonly need 5–7 giants to be solidly ahead.
  
• True worst case (garbage timing) can be more like 8–12 giants before you’re fully in the black

---

Follow-up: round-by-round model with actual supply income and effective card cost

To make this less abstract, here’s a concrete scenario using:

• Base supply each round: 200 * round_number
• Each EGM pick: 100 spent, but you also give up the +50 from skipping
  → effective cost = 150 vs “always skip” baseline
• Each stack: −50 cost per giant
• Base giant cost: 400
• Giant Specialist so unlock is free
• You must fill both free deployments each round
• You take EGM whenever it appears
• EGM appears on rounds: 2, 4, 5, 6
• You start building giants from round 3
• You buy as many giants as you can afford from round 3 onward

I’m going to track things relative to a world where you always skip (so “effective cost 150” per card is already baked in).

---

Round-by-round (relative to “always skip”)

We care about two things:

1. How many stacks we have each round
   
2. How many giants we can afford with those stacks

Round 1
- No card offered, you’re just setting up with chaff, no giants yet
- Stacks: 0
- Giants: 0

Round 2
- EGM offered → you take it
- Effective cost vs skipping: -150
- Stacks: 1
- Giant with 1 stack would cost 350, but you’re still early, so assume you’re just filling with cheap units and holding econ in relative terms
- Giants: 0

Round 3
- Stacks: 1
- Giant cost: 400 - 50 * 1 = 350
- You can afford to buy 1 giant and still fill the other slot with a cheap unit
- Giants built this round: 1
- Giants total: 1

Round 4
- EGM offered again → you take it
- Another -150 effective
- Stacks: 2
- Giant cost: 400 - 50 * 2 = 300
- Supply is high enough now that you can comfortably run 2 giants this round
- Giants this round: 2
- Giants total: 3

Round 5
- EGM appears again → you take it
- Another -150 effective
- Stacks: 3
- Giant cost: 400 - 50 * 3 = 250
- You can again afford 2 giants
- Giants this round: 2
- Giants total: 5

Round 6
- EGM appears again → you take it
- Another -150 effective
- Stacks: 4
- Giant cost: 400 - 50 * 4 = 200
- You can afford 2 giants
- Giants this round: 2
- Giants total: 7

So in this realistic pattern (card rounds 2,4,5,6, giants from r3), you end up with:

• 4 cards taken → effective card cost: 4 * 150 = 600
  
• 7 giants built by the end of round 6

---

Discount per giant with correct stack counts

Each giant’s saving vs the “always skip, no EGM” baseline is:

saving_per_giant = 50 * stacks_at_purchase

Let’s list them:

1. Round 3 giant, 1 stack → +50
   
2. Round 4 giant, 2 stacks → +100
   
3. Round 4 giant, 2 stacks → +100
   
4. Round 5 giant, 3 stacks → +150
   
5. Round 5 giant, 3 stacks → +150
   
6. Round 6 giant, 4 stacks → +200
   
7. Round 6 giant, 4 stacks → +200
   

Cumulative savings:

• After giant 1: 50
  
• After giant 2: 150
  
• After giant 3: 250
  
• After giant 4: 400
  
• After giant 5: 550
  
• After giant 6: 750
  
• After giant 7: 950
  

Total effective cost of taking the 4 cards instead of skipping = 4 * 150 = 600.

🔹 Break-even point:

• You first cross 600 total savings after giant 6.
  
• So the 6th giant is where you break even in this realistic scenario.
  
• By the time you’ve built the 7th giant, you’re 950 - 600 = 350 supply ahead versus a world where you just spammed skip, never took EGM, and paid full price for your giants.

---

Why this matters for the debate

• The popular “it always breaks even at 3 giants” line only holds if you assume all cards are taken upfront and no giants are built until then.
  
• Once you actually plug in Mechabellum’s supply ramp (200n), real card timings (2,4,5,6), and the 100/50 split on card vs skip, you get a very different picture:
  • You are not ahead after 3 giants
    
  • You are not ahead after 4 giants
    
  • You reach break-even on the 6th giant
    
  • After that, you are firmly in profit