Sure there are plenty of ways to do this. You could make russia stronger but direct how this preset bid is allocated, or you could rule in some special rules to accomplish the same goal (see siredbloods lend lease or BM rules). You could modify the VC and go for tokens or total Victory cities across both maps, or like sired’s mod, make a big list of goals and the Axis win if they check off some predetermined number of them by X turn (see events page for sired’s mod).
There are two challenges; 1) how do you gain consensus among your home group regarding changes 2) what is the most fun and balanced way to implement the changes in order to keep the game vital and interesting? Possibly a 3rd consideration is how easy are your changes to implement without confusing players or causing constant revisions/corrections.
I personally think that key among these changes should be
- the elimination of taranto as a pat open (we divide the adriatic into two SZ to accomplish this) without eliminating it as an option
- a blanket increase in Russias staying power but not at the expense of Japan in lieu of a bid that goes to the UKvItaly (the UK seems correctly balanced to me or very close)
- a decrease in the Axis territory bonuses from 5 to 4 or 3 to avert a mid game flop in the money
I think if you go further and add alot of new rules like Sired does, that its really an all new game and balance would have to be reevaluated
BM doesnt go as far, but many people dont think BM is that much more balanced than OOB, and BM air interception, while very fun, reduces Strat bombing as an option
YGs VC mod doesnt change rules only VCs, it changes the playout of the game but not exactly its balance.
We have tried to add a more comprehensive suite of mods for our KC group, but at this point going to tailor them back to the 3 mentioned above or try sired’s mod.
Over all, the game is mature enough that I think most people are ready for some changes.