@Imperious:
Closing a territory is not based on a unit, so how can you ‘develop’ a unit to have that capability?
This is not an answer, War bonds for example are just extra IPC and have nothing to do with units or technology. Its just extra money that could be used to repair factories too.
You pointed out two optional rules that are specific UNIT modifications and question turning them into developing techs (which to me seems logical). I posted an opposing view based on your poor example of Dardenelles straight optional rule, and I correctly pointed out it’s not a unit mod. So then you (again) bring up another poor analogy.
War bonds is not a Cousin_joe added tech, it’s already an OOB rule.
There are only two optional rules.
There’s another entire optional concept called Weapons Development.
That’s a package deal. And when you can target the development of these, then they become startegic parts of the game. Also, a 1 in 6 shot is not enough ‘targetting’ in my book.
@Imperious:
And i am not sure why you don’t ever answer the first question which was asked twice already?
here it is again:
Why repackage optional rules as new techs, rather than just keep them as they are optional or standard rules, like NO’s and techs.
Because I already answered this question TWICE.
If you give a weapon to everyone in the game, it’s not STRATEGIC.
Everyone has it, just not the players who CHOOSE to develop it either to gain an advantage or react to a threat, i.e. to counter the other players advantage.
In this sense, DEVELOPING an ‘optional rule’ into a tech, then it becomes strategic.
I don’t think it’s that hard of a concept to follow.
@Imperious:
if they are on then all players gain more options.
no, it gives players more modifications to ALL players. Where’s the option?
EVERYONE gets it. If I were to continue your way of thinking, giving everyone all techs but 2 would give every player ALL THESE OPTIONS….
No it wouldn’t. You’d have a game with Alien Laser flying tanks. Hey, if you love tech, that’s great, give it to everyone, but that doesn’t give players more options (it actually LESSENS them) and it certainly does not make the game more strategic.
@Imperious:
to limit them to ‘technology’ also limits them to players because they have to roll dice to get them and may never get them. So if you want more options you make them standard and required and make original house rules to support them right?
I was always under the impression that less house rules are better, not more. However, that’s a personal taste that varies by player.
@Imperious:
The other question was why and how can you apply the same exact rules for 1941 and 1942 such as the UK free factory , when clearly the value of this is not clear at all as a blanket fix for ALL the balancing issues of all 4 games?
I believe Cousin_joe targetted his rule changes to 1941 scenario.
I don’t think he EVER mentioned 1942 scenario, if he did, I missed it.
@Imperious:
And also please don’t get personal with me too. ok?
If you keep your responses from being so glib, I would respect you more.
Unless you actually thought you could develop a tech that closes the dardenelles straight…