I more than agree with templeton on the freedom to players idea. I appreciate the game offers a nice historical point of view, but it is the idea of being able to do the “what if” playing that makes it really exciting.
How about America gets the ability to launch bombers from aircraft carriers. (They cannot land on the carriers, but they can launch from them.)
This ability is only available in the Pacific and if at any time the American fleet is stronger in the atlantic than in the pacific, it is lost for the duration of the game. (Fighters are air assets, not naval assets, even on aircraft carriers.)
The optional rules of Revised were ridiculous. I mean, every allied country had decent rules (and UK having probably the best with free IC and Joint Strike), and the Axis probably had the worst. Kamikaze anyone?
To be more historically correct, maybe the rules were correct. But I have to agree with the post of another member. If we were to do a historical game, we would have to take into consideration the attack/defense of every unit in the game, which would make the game far too complicated.
If one wants to play with joint strike, he should do so in in-house game
kamikaze could be strong
imagine a nice lonely carrier with 2 fighters on it with no place to land
worth a fighter?