New to the group, and I have voted.
I will applaud you all for your creative thinking.
Here are a few questions for you all.
Presuming it is true that the 1941 scenario with the National Objectives is biased towards the Axis, then is the opposite true that the 1941 scenario without National Objectives is biased towards the Allies?
Here is another question, National Objectives are an optional rule, right?
As you all say, earlier versions of this game also favored the Allies, right?
Always respectful of Larry Harris and impressed with his games, I offer the following suggestion, that perhaps National Objectives are part of his grand plan. Due to the inherent bias of the war/game towards the Allies, he created National Objectives as an optional rule to turn the tables on the Allies.
So while I applaud your creative thinking about lump sum bid systems and moving units around the board for the 1941 scenario, maybe the point is that National Objectives are supposed to favor the Axis. And if it is true that without National Objectives the game/war favors the Allies, then without redesigning the game or the setup or implementing new rules, maybe the simplest way to play “balanced” game is just to reduce the value of the National Objectives from 5 IPC to 4 IPC or 3 IPC or 2 IPC, depending on the skill level of the players at the table.
This way requires no new rules, no new units, no new setups and fixes any balance issues quickly and with a minimum of fuss.