ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
In a game such as this I myself would sacrifice that bit of history for the trade off in game play. However, if I can assume to count you and Hubert on the side not in favor of change that would bring the vote total to 4 in favor of a change and 7 against, and to be honest 2 of the 4 that I counted in favor didn't vote for the specific change I proposed. When I started this I expected it to be overwhelming in favor of change, so I was wrong.
I can definitely be happy with being 10% whiny about some things while being 90% very satisfied with the game you guys have put together. [:)]
I honestly wouldn't take myself as being on any side in this. [:)]
I'm just interested in seeing the discussion, it's good because we're seeing an exchange of views and it might help us to improve things at some point as things progress.
One thing I've gathered from this is that there seem to be two different issues. One is the ease of reinforcing/upgrading in game, and the other revolves around the rules of doing so.
One comment about automatically upgrading units once a research advance is achieved is that while that can be argued for when units are within good supply and connected to their capital, for cut-off units, or those in far flung places, e.g. Axis units in North Africa, or in a pocket like at Stalingrad, automatically upgrading them could seem rather odd.