...
Sure mate, sure. If only it would add anything to the discussion...
...
Sure mate, sure. If only it would relate to anything I said.
If you remember me arguing that earlier, you should have no trouble remembering also that I always pointed out how side costs should never be added directly to a unit, but divided by the number of units it affects you've built over the game.
Tech is a matter of timing of the unit and tech costs should always be considered as a timing and not direct cost, I have even pointed this out couple of mins ago on shoutbox against gbem arguments.
Side tech, being optional and limited by its nature, inflates the cost of a unit(s) it affects, the more units benefiting from it on field, the less it inflates their overall cost, but again, it most certainly does inflate their cost.
AEC is a perfect example of cost inflated unit.
It requires side tech to build, but doesn't perform nor should it perform as base cost+unlock cost, but you never built more then 1, hence full side tech cost inflates its value, but does not impact its performance.
I hope that's clear enough to understand.
I do see your point, but in the end it does not change much.
Allied side tech is side tech (even the USF ambulance) is used to delay the main tech and time infantry power levels properly. Not all of it is optional as you say. Not for the early-mid game, and definitely Allied infantry is meant to have at least some of their tech researched. Conscripts need the AT grenade, UKF needs bolster, USF usually also weapon racks (+ ambulance) or grenades. It does not matter at that point if your weapon upgrade is gated behind a "side tech" or a main tech building. The only difference is that the additional "side tech" button gives you a little bit of freedom when you want to have it in a window of +/- 5 min. That's also why we don't see 10 minute Cromwells. Because UKF needs to invest into side tech to not lose the game early on. Allied factions have been balanced and designed around this need for side tech.
If you allocate the cost of e.g. weapon racks to Riflemen or IS, then there is no reason not to split an arbitrary amount of Axis tech cost to Faust, StGs, the rifle grenade etc to Axis mainline. You pay resources to get benefits, and these benefits are access to new units and to weapon upgrades/abilities etc. Teching up just for teching up does not give any benefit, this game is not a science victory in Civ.
Back to the current OST changes though:
Thinking about it I am not sure about the BP1 change. Yes, there are issues with Osttruppen at the moment, but this change further diminishes possible build orders and linearizes the faction. The benefit of saving a couple of MP is just not as high as saving some fuel. I think Ost is very well designed for having trade offs and decisions to make between rushing a unit or steadily building up its rooster. The decision for T3 or T4 rush has already been eliminated by moving all costs to BP2, and with the current change the only thing left to do is to ask if you really want T2 or not. I am not saying all these changes have been detrimental, but compared to what Ost looked like one or two years ago there is just basically nothing left to decide anymore. At this point we could almost delete battle phases and move everything to the buildings themselves.