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

@vonlettowvorbeck1915 A couple of Chinese territories in the original version have dual Japanese and Chinese markers printed on them too.

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

Okay aa50 can take 2-10+ hours. Global can take 6 hours to a few days.

The longest aa50 game I had lasted 32 hours because Germany was on the brink of losing, had a miracle defense against UK USA attack… Hit improved artillery with 1 tech roll that has been going for a long time suddenly has enough to kill south europe, survives another UK all in blast. Meanwhile Japans 30 tanks 5 bombers dies to Russia 25 inf 2 USA fighter (5 aa gun hits)  the Game that refused to end.

So global just takes long where as aa50 if it takes long it is because the game ending battles failed.

@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.

Stable version: http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?wn3mjmen3yk

Unstable version: http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?wzvnmlw1uej

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.

ditto.

Revised miniatures on average are better than Anniversary miniatures. I have seen several boxes open (in my playgroup we have three Anniversary boxes overall) and read reports on the net.

I have personally compared the miniatures. As an example Anniversary T-34 is worst than Revised T-34: it is smaller, narrower, lack the details, and its turret is also asymmetric. Ships structures are a mess.
The only Anniversary miniature largely better then the Revised one is the Panther, which is a miniature taken from A&A Battle of the Bulge not specifically made for Anniversary. I already used Panther from Battle of the Bulge in Revised before Anniversary was released.

From a gaming point of view Revised is more balanced than Classic and presents more challenging in planning.

The Revised rules, in my playgroup we use the LHTR, are more clearly written than Classic. We use LHTR also in Pacific and in Europe. Anniversary rules are based on LHTR not on Classic rules.

Teaching A&A with Classic is a waste of time imho. There are few rules that are the same. The remaining rules are completely different. Learning A&A with Classic require a lot of effort for learning Anniversary. Learning A&A with Revised requires only few rules clarification (or complication in case of China) for being ready to play Anniversary.

Revised has been sold as a balanced historical games? I do not trust advertising.
Anniversary Adverstising said that the new nations will have new unique sculpts … and other amenity that are not true, as the release date.

Revised is still a solid light wargame, cheap and quite challenging. I own all the games of A&A series and Classic is less played than Revised. We play Classic only when we feel nostalgic.