Hey guys, thank you so much for your input.
And yes, you are correct when it comes to Australia being worth 2 IPCs in one territory to allow for an IC there. That makes perfectly sense.
I am still a bit undecided on this possible shuffle from Africa to US West Coast in one turn. True, one turn represents 4 months, but I think it is the nature of the game to not being able to move units right to the frontlines or immediately from A to B. But I will think about this.
I also still think that splitting the money islands and giving them a lower yield will not benefit Japan. Yes, it will take a bit longer for the US to liberate them, but it will also slow down Japan in the first two or three rounds because they have to split their transports even more. There are just so many possible targets now (money islands/ philippines, Australia, mainland China, India, Hawaii,…).
Yes, making it so that these islands yield more IPCs would make Britain’s economy stronger - but only in the first or second turn. Although these are crucial turns, in the long run, these increases in yield will only benefit Japan. It is so much easier for them to capture and defend them than for the British Player.
I might do some test games on my current board and see how they go!
EDIT: This is the link for the same map as before but without the altered Sea Zone on The US West Coast and East Australia being worth 2 IPCs. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/4aog2fx8fse0n8k442i3k/MODDED-2-AA_Anniversary_OOB_gimp.png?rlkey=5k4lcgbthv8tekdmg8pct5jb6&st=o91gy2zu&dl=0