As far as I can tell, your position is something like: (1) People only use bigger tractors for worse soil, not to reduce their own human workloads. This caps t

As far as I can tell, your position is something like: (1) People only use bigger tractors for worse soil, not to reduce their own human workloads. This caps the natural progression of machine sizes I'm describing, thus stopping things before a size where swarms matter (not refuting a crossover point (kindly consider the O(x^2) or greater vs O(x) cost idea), but suggesting we'll never reach it). (2) The human cost of maintenance dwarfs all other costs, and the status quo of small vs large machines suggests large machines will be cheaper to repair, so a swarm of 1-2 big machines will be much cheaper to repair than 100-200 small machines. (*) some addendum addressing my less important side-benefits Does that sound like a correct characterization?