I believe you
However, whether it’s what you want or not, the end result is that the game is easier and then the devs will have to rebalance.
Example 1: ’We should be able to manufacture a weapon because a recruit had it or get the faction to supply more when needed.'
It makes the tech part of the game easier. So then the devs would have to rebalance by making the cost more expensive perhaps, or having recruits arrive with weaker weapons. Then people might say, ’It’s not logical, why does it cost so much? Why would the recruit have such a weak weapon?'. It’s just the game’s structure, pure and simple.
Example 2: ’It doesn’t make sense that you can’t pre-load 4 squaddies in an APC AND take another 4, or another APC with 4 soldiers, in the plane’.
Ok, so then the devs let you do that because ‘it’s logical’ and looks like it makes sense in the plane diagram grid. But now they have to rebalance; perhaps make enemies tougher/increase enemy numbers. Why? Because being able to take 8 soldeirs and 1-2 vehicles makes the game easier, whether the person wanted it or not. Or they make the soldiers/vehicle weaker. Then people say, ’Why is the APC made of cardboard? It’s not realistic!’.
My point is that whatever way you look at it, it’s just about creating challenge, balance and gameplay mechanics/progression. You don’t play chess and say, ’What? The King can only move one square? Unrealistic. Give him greater movement.' If you did, then you’d have to rebalance the other pieces but why bother when the game works great as it is?