Would playing with ALL of the National Advantages be balanced?

[rydiafan]

I haven't gotten to play the revised edition yet, so I'm wondering what the rest of you think about the idea of playing with all of the national advantages in effect. Would this be balanced?

[RuHurt]

I didn't even realize the revised was out yet! If it is, I need to find a store!

[holywolfman]

We played our first game last weekend (see other post)....We too played with all the Player's "Advantages" (option rule)...It seemed balance and more fun and strategic for all the player's with the exception of the USA player:
I (along with others) find the superfortresses/ bomber advantage [all USA bombers all IMMUNE to all AA fire...can not shoot them down] to be too powerful especially with longe range and heavy bombers tech!

What we did to 'mend' this is we made USA bombers hit with AA guns when you roll a 1 (as normal AA rules)...but that play would have to re-roll any ones to see if another '1' comes up to make it a downed bomber!*

*(This way it makes hitting the USA bombers 'less' likely but not IMPOSSIBLE!!! ;)

-Nick- smile.gif

[Krieghund]

Another way to make the Superfortresses less powerful would be to make a normal AA roll, but a 1 causes a "mission failure". The bomber is not lost, but no damage is done. Then a second die is rolled for each mission failure, and a roll of 1 would indicate the loss of the bomber as well.

[DY]

Originally posted by Krieghund:
Another way to make the Superfortresses less powerful would be to make a normal AA roll, but a 1 causes a "mission failure". The bomber is not lost, but no damage is done. Then a second die is rolled for each mission failure, and a roll of 1 would indicate the loss of the bomber as well.I like this idea a lot.

[holywolfman]

...That sounds like another good alternative too!
(I liked that as well)....just now I have to convince my other players if they like that as well! :D

-Nick- smile.gif