Does anyone have any photos comparing the different versions ….....

In China that CHANGED the map by adding a Chinese control symbol on a Japanese controlled area, to indicate that its Chinese influence

thanks yes.  I have a re recreated board and not the game.  But that sounds right with changing territories.

@toblerone77 A bit late to the party here but anyway…!
The sculpts are made in a lighter plastic than later versions and the Japanese infantry sculpts, for example, really show this. Lots of them have half their helmets missing and their rifle stocks are too thin and are thus often bowed or malformed. Another example is Italian tanks which have smaller and far inferior sculpts to the europe 1940 version.
This is my favourite Axis and Allies version regardless and I have swapped out all the pieces with better sculpts from other version. Its probably cost me a fortune in potential re sales but I don’t care.

Personally waiting for FMG to finish with their sculpts and making my own AA50 game with the map for IL.

A whole lot cheaper and much nicer.

the peices on the board represent divisions, corps, etc.
Each infantry model on the board probably has about 100 snipers in it. but it consists of maybe 10,000 - 50,000 men total, so the snipers dont have that much of an effect.

Snipers would be a good unit for a stalingrad A&A game, but now your getting into a different area of gaming….tactical gaming.

A&A, Risk, Diplomacy…are strategic games.
Flames of War, A&A Miniatures, Warhammer…are tactical games

Strategic games deal with commanding grand campaigns, where tactical games are more like chess, each piece has a different and unique task. Snipers fill a tactical roll. If bishops are your long range artillery, rooks, the armor, then the knight is a sniper…for example.

Well, you guys might be missing something here.  You do not need to agree that the game is imbalanced, or have a consensus on what bid is necessary to balance it, to have a consensus on what I am talking about.
Example: Person A may think the game is already balanced and that a bid is not necessary, Person B thinks an Allied bid of 6 ipcs is needed when you play with NOs, and Person C is nutty and thinks that 21 ipcs are needed for the allies with NOs.  But all of these three people may in fact agree that a bid of 2 infantry in europe would be equivalent to a bid of 2 naval warships off the coast of america.
Agreeing on what to do to balance the game is not a pre-requisite to agreeing on certain bids types being equivalent.

Or, to think about it in a different way, lets think of this as a Ratio.
I’m just going to throw this out there, but lets say you have a Bid of X.
If you use it on the “front line” in either Europe or Africa/MiddleEast, then all you get is X.
If you use it not on the front line in Europe/Africa/MiddleEast, or you use it on the front line in China, then you get X1.5
If you use it not on the front line in China, or you use it in the Atlantic on Navy, UK main island Air/Land, then you get X2
If you use it on Pacific navy, or American Continent Land/Air, then you get X*2.5.

Now, as you can see, if you think X should be zero, then they all end up as zero.  If you think X should be 6, then you could either get 2 europe/egypt inf, or 3 chinese inf, or a cruiser in the atlantic, or a DD + a sub in the pacific.  If you think X should be 10, etc, etc.

The colours in Revised can vary. I bought one of the later prints of Revised (3-4 years ago) and the UK colours are the tan of Anniversary (or Bulge).

@captainjack:

Could you take a picture of the IPC’s - I’ve heard they look cool.

I’ve uploaded one to BoardGameGeek.