@Brain:
It is more difficult to balance a game with variables such as NA’s
Optional rules (such as NAs) actually facilitate game balancing. If one side has the edge, simply use an optional rule which helps the other side.
The problem with Revised NAs was that they were meant to be doled out in even quantities. By the book, you couldn’t give the Axis powers NAs without also giving the Allies NAs. If we’d been given free reign over the inclusion of NAs, surely there’d be a subset we could include that would be balance (or better balanced then none at all).
My favourite way to “bid” in revised is to let one player chose which NAs are in play for all countries, and let the other player pick their side. This adds a skill in recognising the power shifts each NA will produce, and much variety too. I think it’s more interesting than an IPC bid.
I liked playing the MB edition with no R1 attack, and German Jets and Japanese Super Subs. I like the closed Dardanelles rule in A&A 50 (I haven’t played with the escorts, as I’m afraid they would help Germany too much). These help provide balance.
NAs (and other options) are also good for a handicap if the game is balanced but the skill levels are not.
Me, I’d like to see NAs in the global game but without the even distribution restrictions seen in revised.
@Brain:
Just do away with these rules and keep everyone on an even playing field.
Nobody’s on an even playing field. A&A is not even remotely symmetric.
@Brain:
Their is enough randomness in this game due to the dice, we don’t need to throw in NA’s as well.
NAs neither add nor detract from randomness.