jcrohio wrote:Are they any restrictions to naval movement? Example Japan has joined the Entente - she seems to be able to deploy her fleets just about all over the world. Is this normal? And are there any negative results to using the Japanese fleet in say the Atlantic Ocean?
No. Historically the Japanese sent forces (at least a destroyer flotilla) to the Med in 1917-18 to assist with the fight against the U-Boats. For a time at least one Japanese capital ship was based at Esquimalt, British Columbia to protect Canada's West Coast from von Spee so they ranged pretty far and wide. Japanese warships also operated in the commerce protection role in the Indian Ocean and for a time were on the front line in the naval defence of Australia, something that the Australian's did not appreciate one bit.
The Japanese had naval observers with the Grand Fleet and as allies of Britain using mainly British style equipment there's no reason why a force could not have sailed to Europe. One of the reasons why I split the Japanese fleet into two major units was to allow something like this since one might assume that, had there been a naval disaster in the North Sea the Admiralty would have called in favours from every other naval power at war with Germany.
The principle objections to Japanese fighting in the West would probably be logistical (limited resources were stretched already) and political (there was much racial prejudice and some distrust of Japan's motives at Whitehall). Perhaps the Japanese would have welcomed the experience provided somebody else footed the bill.
Because Japan has zero money for all intents and purposes, the Japanese Fleet is good only for patrolling and convoy escort and cannot be used for raids or control missions unless money is gifted to Japan in advance. This limits the Imperial Navy's role to something that's probably reasonable.
That's my take on it.