Yes, all very true, but one would expect some kind of bonus for a well balanced combined arms force, but it just seems that the infantry is just as well off without the tanks. Basically, motorized infantry does the job as good as or better than a balanced mechanized formation.
In the game, as long as you're making attacking that work, the main advantage you get from tanks is that they allow you to inflict a reasonable numbers of casualties whilst your own losses remain low because most of your force consists of AFV's. Of course, mediocre experience units suffer, but (especially with some combat changes we're testing) AFV losses won't be too high generally.
With infantry, you expose more men when delivering a punch and you're as such more likely to take heavy losses. Of course, the lack of a chase phase is a bit problematic in terms of limiting mobile unit effectiveness in combat, but the overall lower friendly casualties for a fair number of enemy casualties can be quite an improvement compared to battles fought by infantry divisions.
As to Goodwood and similar operations: the Commonwealth forces (and other Western Allied forces) tried to wage the war more with firepower than with individual unit quality or operational finesse through good leadership, both things which the Western Allies lacked, from that perspective leading with tanks could be viewed as a sensible strategy even though it can also be a disaster. The many minor skirmishes in Germany where some mobile spearhead entered a village, resulting in the lead tanks being knocked out through Panzerfausts/Panzerschrecks or (self-propelled) AT guns show that there are also serious problems with the doctrine, as such events caused a formation to be slowed down for hours as infantry needed to be moved up to remove what often amounted to little more than a few dozen elderly men or kids in buildings.
