I wanted to compile a list so we could see at a glance how frequently and by how much the value of specific territories has been changing. I want to highlight some of the more significant changes that have occurred, based on a comparison with the nearest older world map boards (Revised and AA50).

The following territories or regions have seen changes in their total IPC value, which in my mind demonstrates that IPC values are abstract and should be considered flexible. The territories discussed here reflect the same basic space on the map, but different IPCs values depending on which board you look at.

Game: Territories and IPC value

Revised: Southern Europe 6 ipcs, split into two territories afterwards

AA50: Italy 6 ipcs and Balkans 3 ipcs, (for a regional total of 9 ipcs)

1942.2: Italy 3 ipcs and Southern Europe 2 ipcs, (for a regional total of 5 ipcs)

Revised: Norway 3 ipcs, split into two territories afterwards

AA50: Norway 3 and Finland 2 (for a total of 5 ipcs)

1942.2 Norway 2 and Finland 1 (for a total of 3 ipcs)

Revised: Balkans 3 ipcs, replaced with

AA50: Bulgaria-Romania 2 ipcs, and Czech-Hungary 2 ipcs (for a total of 4 ipcs)

1942.2: Bulgaria-Romania 2 ipcs (for a total of 2 ipcs)

Revised: Eastern Europe 3 ipcs, split into

AA50: Poland 3, Eastern Poland 1, Baltic States 1 (for a total of 5 ipcs)

1942.2: Poland 2, Baltic states 2 (for a total of 4 ipcs)

Revised: Western Europe 6 ipcs, split into

AA50 and 1942.2: France 6 and NW Europe 2 (for a total of 8 ipcs)

Revised and AA50: Algeria 1 ipc, split into

1942.2: Morocco 1 and Algeria 1 (for a total of 2 ipcs)

Revised: Ukraine 3 ipcs, split into

AA50: Ukraine 2, and Eastern Ukraine 1 (for a total of 3)

1942.2: Ukraine 2 (for a total of 2)

Revised: Moscow 8

AA50: Moscow 6

1942.2: Moscow 8

Revised: W. Russia 2, Belorussia 2 (for a total of 4 ipcs)

AA50: W. Russia N/A replaced by Belorussia 1 (for a total of 1 ipc)

1942.2 W. Russia 2, Belorussia 2 (back to a total of 4 ipcs)

Revised: Archangel 2 and Novosibirsk 2 (for a total of 4 ipcs)

AA50: Archangel 1, Novosibirsk 1, and Urals 1 (for a total of 3 ipcs)

1942.2: Archangel 2, Novosibirsk 1, and Vologda 2 (for a total of 5 ipcs)

Revised: French Indo China 3 ipcs, split into

AA50: French Indo China 2, Burma 2 and Yunnan 1 (for a total of 5)

1942.2: French Indo China 2, Malaya 1, Burma 1 and Yunnan 1 (for a total of 5)

Revised: Kwangtung 3 ipcs

AA50: Kiangsu 2, Fukien 1, Kwangtung 1 (for a total of 4)

Revised: Kwangtung 2, Kiangsu 2 (for a total of 4)

Revised: Philippines 3

AA50: Philippines 2

1942.2: Philippines back to 3

Revised and AA50: Okinawa 1

1942.2: Okinawa 0

Those are the main ones that jump out at me, there are probably more, and if you look back to Classic there are yet other differences in IPC value. But the point to stress is that there is a degree of variation (especially in the range of 1 ipc plus or minus to a specific region.) To me this indicates that A&A is willing to tolerate a margin of flexibility between 1 and 2 ipcs on several areas of the map board. I would suggest going forward that an additional 1 ipc should be added to area/territories of the map that do not see much action. Clearly you know where I’d like to see them (in the Pacific islands!) At least as far as every other area of the map goes, A&A has already proved itself less rigid and inflexible regarding IPC value than it seems to be with the Pacific. Why? Can anyone explain this to me? I find it odd, since on every board the Pacific vs JTDTM dynamic persists without resolution, even after several editions.

I say stop trying to create new territories out of existing ones, or shuffling numbers around, and instead focus on changing the values of those territories which currently have little to no in game value (IPCs). Give them an additional value of 1 ipc the same way all those other territories mentioned above have seen adjustments at 1 ipc. I find the decision to remove yet more ipcs from the Pacific islands in 1942.2 totally baffling. Clearly the gameplay in previous editions (and yet again in the current one) would have recommended doing the exact opposite, if the goal was to make that region of the board more active. Does anyone else see that?