Tamas wrote:there is no realistic chance whatsoever for enemies of GB to conquer those in this conflict, so I consider those more like placeholder for British forces than actual areas.
For example, in the boardgame, the Japanese conquests of the German Far East were an event-driven sequence, and the army only appeared on the map -in Siberia- if Japan joined the Centrals.
So seeing how the Japanese Army is the only one having even a remote offshoot chance of conquerin British pacific regions, I suggest we roll back to the original boardgame settings regarding Japan, instead of introducing new stuff for the british zones there.
I am not suggesting new mechanics.

I am trying to understand the logic of the existing mechanics and balance because right now the logic doesnt appear to add up and I guess I am asking if I have misunderstood something.
(And I have seen the Germans conquer 3 of these areas as the AI in the latest patch and in the current model I am about to conquer the entire region with my CP allied japanese)
I am just asking why, if Japan as a central powers ally conquered HK, Singapore, Australia, NZ it would effect the UK economically less than the loss of Plymouth. I am trying to understand the logic behind if the UK lost most of its asian empire (excluding india) why it, if I understand correctly, it has infinitely less effect (as its zero NW will loss if I am correct) than a raid on scarborough. Not to knock the people of scarborough, losing your house sucks. But losing Australia, Singapore, NZ and HK might suck more than losing a street or two in scarbourgh? Or would you disagree with that?