Personally, I don’t understand how a serious judgement could be made on the balance of such a complex game after playing just a couple of runs. I have started only about ten games since I got Global 1936 v3 (most aborted before 1945), but there are so many options and possible strategies that the outcome is never predictable, especially starting in 1936.
This feels much different from A&A where, as you keep playing, you just improve on what you consider to be the optimal strategy for the Axis or the Allies and then it comes down to the luck of the dice in a few key battles. Either Germany takes Moscow or the American overwhelming spending power prevails in good time…
Another factor to consider is that there are so many rules and exceptions in Global 1936, that the first games will inevitably be riddled with errors on the part of the players. Each time we play, we realize that we forgot about some rule or other (i.e. minor ports don’t give a movement bonus, you can’t upgrade your factory in India, KMT militia cannot move in home country unless it becomes a major power, you need to damage the airfield before a city is considered to be encircled, and many, many more).
Everyone is free to tweak the game with home rules, but I think you need to master all the basic rules first. To me it’s like saying, having played a few games of Chess, “Humm, the Queen seems really OP, so let’s replace a pawn with a third Knight”!
Yes, the chance aspect of tech rolls is a part of the unpredictable outcome. For instance, playing Germany with early access to Panzergrenadiers and Wartime income makes for a much different game that when you miss out on these important rolls. The many expansions and optional rules available can also affect how your game plays out.
Finally, due to the pandemic, I have only played the game with 2 players so far, so the Allies and Comintern are always coordinated, but I know this game was designed to be a 3 player game and I can’t wait to try with this very different dynamic.