I did some geographical statistical information analysis on the AA50 map and continental territories.
Pacific islands -NOs = 17 ipc
Pacific islands +NOs = 47 ipc
Africa (including Trans-Jordan and Madagascar) -NOs = 14 ipc
Africa (including Trans-Jordan and Madagascar) +NOs = 33 ipc
Europe (including Russia, Germany and UK) -NOs = 67 ipc
Europe (including Russia, Germany and UK) +NOs = 122 ipc
Europe (excluding capitals) -NOs = 37 ipc
Europe (excluding capitals) +NOs = 92 ipc
Asia mainland (Including Persia, Kazakh, Urals in western Asia, Soviet Far East in north eastern Asia, French Indo-China Thailand in south Asia and everything between these territories) -NOs = 31 ipc
Asia mainland (Including Persia, Kazakh, Urals in western Asia, Soviet Far East in north eastern Asia, French Indo-China Thailand in south Asia and everything between these territories) +NOs = 46 ipc
–----------------------------------------
For a comparison with Revised,
AAR continental territory values:
Pacific islands = 17 ipc
Europe (including capitals) = 62 ipc
Europe (excluding capitals) = 36 ipc
Africa (including Madagascar and Trans-Jordan) = 13 ipc
Asia mainland (from Persia to Soviet Far East) = 25 ipc
I did not include territories which will not usually be contested.
The numbers above is the main reason why I think a non pacific US approach is an inferior strategy, and for the same reason, a KJF/US pac strat in AAR is also inferior.
KJF has been done without doubt in AAR, also against noon-noobs, but it will always be harder than KGF.
In AA50 it’s not so much different in this aspect if the 41 or 42 scenario is played w/o NOs.
AA50 is even more different from Revised if NOs are on.
If we want a global war we should always play with NOs, and if NOs are on, the powers who controls the most valuable territories will dominate the world.