@Young:
There won’t be any more advantages or rules added, just that the ones you see will get tweaked for balance and/or relative historical accuracy.
Yes, this project looks to me like it’s now in the polishing stage rather than the carving stage. I’ve had another look at the first page of the post and here are a few more suggested tweaks.
“Base Support: Strategic Bombers conducting SBRs only receive a +2 damage bonus if they have departed from an airbase.”
I’ve never quite understood the rationale behind the OOB rule that says that taking off from an air base improves an aircraft’s range, but I’m even more perplexed about your proposed variant in which taking off from an air base affects a strategic bomber’s defensive capabilities. I have no objection to the adjustments in and of themselves; I’m just wondering what they’re supposed to represent on a conceptual level.
“Russian Winter: During their purchase new units phase of each turn, Russia may choose to roll an attempt @6 on 1 die in order to trigger a severe Russian winter.”
I’d rephrase this to say “in order to check for the occurence of a severe Russian winter.” The USSR didn’t have the capacity to control the weather, though they were admittedly very good at using exceptionally harsh winters to their advantage when they occurred.
“Political Sovereignty: Strict Neutral territories in South America have no influence over Strict Neutral territories anywhere else, and vise versa.”
I’d rephrase this to say “A change in the neutrality status of Strict Neutral territories in South America has no influence…” It’s not the territories themselves which control other territories, which is how I first interpreted the current phrasing. (Indeed, the very concept of political sovereignty expresses the idea that Sovereign Country X is not controlled by Sovereign Country Y.)
“Mutual Allies: In the event of a 6 player group game, the United Kingdom will play France, the United States will play ANZAC, and the Soviet Union will play China.”
“Mutual Allies” is kind of vague in terms of the adjustment it describes, and it also sounds a bit redundant since all allies are inherently mutual. (This doesn’t mean that they always cooperate smoothly, but that’s another story.) Your goal here seems to be to present an alternative to the OOB rule that pairs the Soviet Union with France, the United States with China and the United Kingdom with ANZAC, so a possible alternate title would be “Regional Allies”. Britain and France are physically next-door neighbors across the Channel, the USSR and China have a section of common border, and the US and ANZAC are based at opposite (but complementary) corners of the Pacific in which they both have interests.