Ok, North America. Here we have 2,5 powers. Mexico, USA and UK (Canada).
One suggestion in already. Scrap Vancouver. The reason to do so is not obvious to me, so I would like to hear the motivation. Did I miss something?
The performance for Mexico is one draw, 6 survivals and 17 eliminations. The performance score that gives is the worst of all powers and less than half of the second lowest score (Russia). Mexico's average SCs is 2.96. WTA stands for 2 of the survivals and the one draw (10 WTA games in total), with an average of 4.3 SCs while PPSC (+unrated) has an average on 2.15 SCs. As posted above Mexico has one game above 20 SCs, which is the draw game. In that game USA went CD early on and was quickly eaten.
The performance for USA is 1 solo, 3 draws, 7 survivals and 13 eliminations. The solo was a Gunboat PPSC game, won by Dr. Recommended. WTA stands for 2 draws and 3 survivals with an average of 6.3 while PPSC comes in at 6.92, with a total average at 6.38. The US has two games with more than 20 SCs.
The performance of Britain is higher than these two, all categories. I don't have Canada data, so we can wait with stats for Britain a while.
On this arena I've focused on trying to maintain choices, so that US and Mexico does not have to attack each other. The general jizz was to reduce the distance to other powers compared with the first version of the variant. Therefore Canada is close to Britain and units can quickly go between, making it possible both for a British re-taking of the USA as well as a US landing on the isles themselves. Cuba and Haiti are closely linked to USA while sitting on the Caribbean that is central in Colombia's powerhouse, made to cause war between these two. Japan and USA can bounce already in 1901 in more than one province, Manila is a sought after gain for Japan, and USA does have to fleet power to try a counter attack if not bothered with other stuff, causing a war of control of the entire Pacific. Mexico in turn can reach Colombian areas quickly on both coasts and also has only one sea zone to cross before being able to fight Argentina. Meanwhile, to reduce US-Mexican tension, Rio Grande sits in the way of any attempts to move in two armies at once to make a surprise strike at a home centre from either direction. Oh, and USA is not that far from France, and a foothold in Europe is great when trying to secure the 37 centres.
I'm feeling that I probably took the wrong approach while thinking of how to bring more "neighbours together". I will bring up my ideas for possible edits soon. Meanwhile, for anyone who played on this part of the map, feel free to give your opinion on:
1. Whether the nation(s) have a fair chance (i.e. balance).
2. Whether the area is fun to play
3. If it feel likes there are many options to pursue, and which ones these are.
4. Anything else.