@Imperious:
Your making comparisons based on what you do in revised. Thats the same thing you probably did when Revised came out and you were playing milton bradley edition. The game has evolved and its much more aligned with the realistic or historical sensibilities where the Japanese don’t make those tank charges against Moscow, driving up from India or Manchuria… Thats all nonsense.
I measure balance. Everyone agrees that the last two are unbalanced, Classic to a greater degree than Revised. I don’t want to see 50th Anniversary take a giant leap backwards.
Realistic or historical sensibilities? Do you want a boardgame or a history book? So what if Japan didn’t do something? When I sit down to play, I don’t think about what Japan did or didn’t do when I go to make my moves. I look for the best route to win. And just because Japan didn’t do it, doesn’t mean it couldn’t have done it. Japan never invaded Austrailia, but they damn well can in Axis & Allies.
How how about these realistic or historical sensibilities. Great Britain was weak. Germany had it beat into submission and would have been stomped it out of the war completely if it wasn’t for the United States propping it up. What is the 30 IPCs that the U.K. gets? The annual welfare check from the U.S.?
@Imperious:
Italy is weak and they were sort of weak, but had a few really nice pieces to start ( her navy) Italy can also easily get her 10 IPC bonus and basically double her income in no time. You need to come up with new ideas to win, and you cant rest on your knowledge of revised to get you to the finish line. This new evolution is a totally new experience and most of the people commenting are looking at it with the revised map and rules embedded in their mental picture.
So again its not a Revised version or Revised. Its AA50. A whole new edifice.
I would rather have Italy excluded altogether than have it be a weak link in an already underpowered Axis.