A couple of thoughts in addition to Hans:
I promised my train of thought regarding the American attack on the Japanese fleet: like you said, the Allies weren’t likely to win. So I had been looking for opportunities that might turn the tide. I knew beforehand that this winning this one battle wouldn’t be enough to turn the tide, even if wouldn’t lose a single plane. But we had to start somewhere.
From a more local point of view, winning the battle wasn’t that important. You needed 2 transports and a protecting fleet to maintain your island factory logistics, and even I won big you would be left with the nucleus of a new fleet, and opportunity to rebuild. So it was more a TUV-driven attack, where I hoped that your losses would be bigger than mine and you would be forced to spend money on ships. For the battle itself, I noticed that the expected TUV change for a single round of combat wasn’t too bad (minus a couple of IPCs). So that made me willing to see how the first rolls would turn out. And if things went south, I had the attacker’s advantage (i.e., I could retreat if I wanted).
Regarding the balance of the variant we just played: I think you’re a better player than I am, but under the ruleset we used, I think I will win most games against you if I can play with Axis.
Generally: I supposed you could try to offset pro-Ally rules (e.g. no interceptors) with pro-Axis rules (e.g. technology) but I think the net result will always be that one side will have some advantage. So that got me thinking: if it is true that every variant of the game is unbalanced one way or the other, maybe that’s not so bad. Players can pick the version of the game they like, discuss if they are going to use bids or not, and pick sides. For example, a game group might like using interceptors and technology. In time, their bids will converge on a number that promises a more balanced game.
For the ruleset we just played, I’m not sure what bid I would offer to take Allies. 25?