by accook
That's a fair point about bonuses being harder to keep. More generally we could say that the bonuses would more volatile, being easier to get and in most cases harder to hold. We could also say that it opens more of the board to relevance, since any bonuses in Asia, however volatile, are more likely to generate action than a +7 that is almost never attained. As a side effect, Australia here appears to be somewhat weakened, but it is also much closer to the action.Remember the goal is to create a different map experience without breaking the board. The main advantages of the Lux board are preserved here: namely, same number and type of territories. As Legacy demonstrates, subtle tweaks can really change strategy and tactics.
All in all, I tend to think the half-bonus board would work better than the full-bonus board, but what do I know? It would have to be play-tested.
Within this concept, there is still room for minor changes. For example, you could merge Irkutsk and Yakutsk into a single territory, and draw a new territory between North Africa and Congo called West Africa (it would probably have the sea line to Brazil). Or, used sparingly, add extreme terrain markers that would cost a unit to expand or attack (but maybe not maneuver?) across. An obvious one would be between India and China---ever heard of the Himalayas?! In effect, this would reduce the number of borders around some of the smaller "continents."