I am considering a few balance issues, but I've put off actually changing them because they might appear to snub one nation or the other:
-Extra spies should probably not work the way they do, where you have one spy who gets replaced and one who doesn't. Instead maybe spies should only be replaced up to the number of intelligence buildings you have. This would be kind of unfair to Arstotzka if they got a second spy and couldn't use the same tactics Moskurg used before.
-Rhino Recoilless Rifle probably a little OP/anachronistic in terms of weight and performance. Maybe should be less portable or short range only, or both. Obviously this would be snubbing Moskurg retroactively though. This is the first piece of equipment I've submitted and really had second thoughts about, so I'd like to also establish a policy for when I make a mistake in the future and give somebody a rocket launcher that shouldn't be easy to engineer for another 30 years.
-Possibly related to the above, is how should I set difficulty for equipment which COULD be really valuable, and from an engineering standpoint can easily be built/has been built, but historically wasn't used until later for the main reason that people didn't realize it would be valuable? Assault rifles and their medium-powered rounds are good example of this. Shaped explosive charges might be also, I'm still not clear on the challenges involved in delivering shaped explosives accurately in a warhead. And don't say "just base it on how hard it would be to build" unless you're planning to alter history/conquer Europe.
-I'm considering using less randomness overall. I've increased the importance of dice rolls compared to my original plan, which was to roll a die for each new technology and have a bad roll not get the technology or have a bug associated with the technology, and then have performance of equipment based on the technologies involved and the year created mainly. As it is I've been using dice to determine general efficiency/useability when I'm not sure, but this has had some questionable results (EG Moskurg and Arstotzka submit similar plane designs, Moskurg's is good and Arstotza's suffers from control and weight issues). In that example the triplane frame was an exacerbating factor but it remains that basically players took the same actions in the same year to different results. I'm considering using less dice rolls and having bad dice rolls be explicitly tied to discrete technologies so it's clear how to solve/avoid bugs in the future. I'd like your opinions before making changes in this department though.
-I'm also considering what to do when I realize that equipment should be useful in a way I haven't thought of after the fact, which seems too trivial to require a revision. Examples include towing artillery by truck (though not extremely useful) or machine guns on top of trains (somewhat useful). Another example is Arstotzkans performing strafing runs on rail tracks themselves (though I stand by my position on that not being valuable, but suppose I said it was). Should I keep a list of tactics used and not used for reference? Is it OK for a piece of equipment to suddenly become more effective than it was before because a player pointed out a more effective way to use it? Should I apply these retroactively, or characterize them as new orders given to soldiers? Should Moskurg get their alternate rounds in .60 caliber even though they said they wanted to make them for artillery? Should I automatically add what I think are very easy improvements like that in general/on good rolls?
-(Edited to add) Also, what about really small revisions? Stuff like Arstotzka getting the stupid flags taken off of soldiers' helmets. There are some things that seem to big to not do during a revision phase but also really small for a revision phase. Should I allow more rapid-fire revision, like I have with ammo types? Should I give something like a 1/2 Revision Credit rebate?
-(Also Edited to add) Right now, if you have 2 ore and 2 oil, a vehicle costing 3 ore and 3 oil is Very Expensive due to having two different expense sources, but one costing 4 ore and 2 oil is just expensive. Should I change this so that expense is based on TOTAL resources required that you don't have? EG, 3 ore and 3 oil is expensive, 4 ore and 2 oil is expensive, 4 ore and 3 oil is Very Expensive, 5 ore and 2 oil is Very Expensive. This seems like it would make sense. I'm not sure if it will affect any designs currently in place but people have certainly been taking the old system into account for new designs.
So, yeah, I'd like your opinions on this stuff, whether I should implement these changes at all, and if the parties injured by balance changes should be compensated in some way.