Have default optional rules changed?

[Kool Kat]

Well, I for one wasn't disparaging anyone, Kool Kat - is that what you're saying? I think, however, that when discussions start to take place designed to influence what the designer will work on and where (as is the case here) the designer has said that those discussions relate to a vocal minority, it's sometimes important - if you're therefore part of the silent majority - that you represent your views in the discussion, because there's always an economy of effort involved in the design process and I for one would rather the designer did not spend his time fixing things which, for me, are not broken. And in the case of special rules that's because, as I said, they don't even get near cropping up as an issue for me. And I NEVER play against the AI, always either PBEM or hot seat (for practice). At the moment I have 3 PBEM games on the go (and many more hs) and there has been zero discussion about optional rules (true, one of them is a PB game where the optional rules aren't so numerous, maybe). In the past playing these games, or the Nappy games, I've never had any issues about selecting optional rules with opponents, just a simple starting discussion. So I'd rather David worked on other things if it came to a choice, which it usually does. I realise, of course, that others feel differently (and are vocal about that), but it's good to also know that there is a difference of opinion, good for the devs, I mean, and good maybe to know that I didn't think David in his reply said anything that should have caused offence, which was a little how reaction to it looked. Presenting my own opinion is not disparaging people. Or were you addressing only Country Boy's comments? About those I would say playing wargames with counters is a 'first world' phenomenon, period. Obviously. But here we are doing it, so it's hard to distinguish, for me, between levels of 'taking it too seriously'. I'm sure I take it as seriously as those worried about too many optional rules, it's just that's not the issue I worry about.

Gent: 

My response was to CountryBoy since I quoted one of his past statements and replied directly to him.

However, since you weighed in, I will respond to your comments too.

The plethora of optional rules is what it is and will remain. I believe that inexperienced and new players may find 26 optional rules, hundreds of possible combinations, different sets of default optional rules, and rules explanations located in manuals and in the forums, to be overwhelming. I suggested that a step-by-step guide on optional rule selection may be needed.

Now, as a veteran player who has played these games for over ten years, I understand the optional rules and there is a set of optional rules I consider essential for PzC and another for MC. I usually will not deviate from these sets.  I periodically have discussions with opponents on "X" optional rule use in a specific scenario, but I always get buy-in from my opponents on the optional rules to use prior to game setup and first turn. So, no, I don't have issues with the selection of optional rules. However, I do take exception and I will call out when designers develop scenarios who do not understand the impact of specific optional rules, and have incorrect parameters set that "break" scenarios such as Japan '45.

Here is one of the Japan '45 threads discussing design decisions: 

https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards...#pid432334

I believe careful thought should be taken on optional rules selection since it will impact game play and enjoyment especially in a PBeM match in which two human players have invested their gaming time in it. The use of inappropriate optional rules can break a scenario and make it unplayable. Why waste players' time?