Why is North and South Africa plus 3, and East and West Africa plus 4.
It's been bothering me quite a while. It doesn't make sense to me since all 4 territories take the same time to capture, have the same amount of bordering territories prone to get attacked.

any thoughts?

i agree, i dont understand it either, my guess is that making all the bonuses to plus 4 would make the continent rather overpowered

I agree with yellow, Africa is very easily defended late game the trade off is that it doesnt give you as much income.

The 2 bonuses in africa that are worth 4 are also very awkwardly shaped and don't leave your leftovers in very useful regions. The north and south are nice and round and so you have much more options in taking them.

My guess would be it is to do with where the bonuses conect to. For example East Africa conects to the middal east making it harder to defend, the same with West Africa and South America. Your more likely to get attacked from America or The Middal East then though Europe or Antartica as Anartica is out the way and Europe is a large bonus.

Lets have a look:
Territory`s in bonus:
NA: 5 (is worth 3)
SA: 5 (Is worth 3)
EA: 5 (Is worth 4)
WA: 5 (Is worth 4)

Territory`s connected to other bonuses:
NA: 4 (3)
SA: 4 (3)
EA: 4 (4)
WA: 4 (4)

Bonuses connected to:
NA: 3 (3)
SA: 3 (3)
EA: 4 (4)
WA: 4 (4)

Amount of territory`s from other bonuses connected to:
NA: 6 (3)
SA: 3 (3)
EA: 8 (4)
WA: 9 (4)

Minimum turns you need to take it over (with one start position in bonus)
NA: 1 (3)
SA: 2 (3)
EA: 2 (4)
WA: 2 (4)

Those facts combined with the form of the bonuses makes it like it is now and I think it is good now. Besides the fact that the map would be a bit unbalansed if it wasn`t like this.

Having consistency in bonus values isn't absolutely a good thing. Most great maps have areas which are rarely occupied and bonuses which are either under- or overpowered. That's what makes the territory selection interesting.

forgot one fact:

The total army`s the surrounding bonuses are worth:
NA: 13 (3)
SA: 11 (3)
EA: 14 (4)
WA: 14 (4)

Same as above but EA and WA would be 3 worth:
NA: 11 (3)
SA: 9 (3)
EA: 13 (now 4 would be 3 in this case)
WA: 13 (now 4 would be 3 in this case)

So the ones that are worth 4 are harder to defend thats all.

No sense in changing them unless all the bonus values are changed: Europe worth 6, Middle East worth 5, US bonuses worth 6, etc. Let players pick from the entire board not just half. Other maps limit the board too but they are bigger. ME's limited picks is its biggest shortcoming. Imagine if all bonuses were worth 1 less than the total number of territories. Game play would matter more. Picks and luck of picking would matter less. The best players would win more. The best pickers would have to learn how to play better.

No wonder so many 1v1 specialists love 1v1 ME: the games played rarely measure the totality of one's ability to play and instead wins are based on patterns (repetitive picking strategies, repetitive ways of growing and bullrushing, etc.) and luck (luck of cards, order luck when picking, order luck when playing, 16% luck, luck of guessing your opponent's moves, luck of guessing your opponent's location, luck of getting intel on opponent, etc.).

1v1s should measure playing ability more.

word up, gui, it is so easy to play strat 1v1 on autopilot.

Agree with it for half. If ME is so easy to auto-stat then a game between players who both know this will become a 50-50% luck comparison depending on which side is luckier. Most of the people who are good in 1vs1 would not be happy with such an outcome leaving me to the conclusion that either it is not just auto-strat or the fact that most people do not know how to play it well and the auto-statters are stat-whores who preselect their opponents on trying to gain an unfair advantage beforehand.

Rember, its not just about how many territories connect. Its also about what those territorie are.