From a gameplay perspective, this map is going to be extremely unbalanced - a surprise stab of USA or Australia will be nearly impossible, and Japan is likely going to be crushed early on in every game. As well, fighting over all those empty ocean spaces just doesn't look like a lot of fun.

And what's that big island off Sumatra's west coast?

If this is truly a WWII variant, why doesn't Japan start off stronger? Why is China even a country? Japan should really have territory including Manchuria and SE Asia all the way into Papua New Guinea. Australia is clearly far too strong to be historically accurate, considering its position on the board relative to its power during WWII. Also, it looks like you made up a bunch of islands in Indonesia instead of looking at a map.

Um.... Japan does have Manchuria, and China is a country because it was a country. As for the other territories, this is clearly not a 1942 start (more like 1936).

Unless you do it as a Fog of War and therefore open to some suprise buttsecks of the US from the high seas, it will make for a boring game.

You could make China a neutral with standing armies. But I'd definitely limit opportunities for Australia. Maybe let them only be able to gain one SC in the starting year. I'd also give the US and the Japanese equal SC's. This map should showcase the US and Japan, so I think that they should have about twice as many SC's as Russia and Australia (maybe 5, 5, 3, and 3). If you have your heart set on a five-player map, I might expand the map to include British India with as few SC's as Russia and Australia. This would stress the importance of grabbing China, and make Russia seem more like an inland power (which they were). Just some thoughts...

Oh, I guess it is yellow. My bad.

I'd forget the traditional units of fleets and armies. With a map like this, armies are going to be almost worthless unless you want to fight the country right next to you. Instead, employ "Marine" units that can hold and support both land and water areas. It might speed up gameplay but would take all of the strategy out of the builds phase.

If you can figure out a way to make it more balanced I would definitely be interested

US Supply Centers
San Fransisco
Anchorage
Pearl Harbor
The Philippines
Guam? Wake Island? Midway?

Japan Supply Centers
Tokyo
Manchuria
Seoul
Fukushima
Hiroshima? Iwo Jima? Nagasaki?

China Supply Centers
Beijing
Shanghai
Hong Kong
Tibet? Yunnan?

Australia Supply Centers
Perth? Darwin? Sydney? Melbourne? Brisbane?

USSR Supply Centers
Vladivostok
Irkutsk
Okhotsk? Kamchatskiy? Yakutsk?

Slightly updated preview: http://s24.postimage.org/yiscjig6t/smallmap.jpg

Consider making Okinawa a Japanese supply center in lieu of Iwo Jima. Iwo Jima was a barren fortress that happened to have a marginally-usable airfield. Okinawa was actually a productive pre-war province and economic asset.

Also, forget the idea of having the Philippines an American SC. Waaay too vulnerable. Make San Diego or Los Angeles the fifth American SC. Midway might be a little too close to Pearl, but it would balance the map better than Wake or Guam.

Hmm. well, if you give the U. S. a vulnerable SC it could make the game more balanced.

Not necessarily. All other countries benefit from nearby home SCs.

I would ask for advice over on vdip where they make a lot of variants to make sure, but I think they are going to tell you this map is very unbalanced and you will find one country will win a majority of the time.

http://s24.postimage.org/z39hox851/smallmap.jpg

Either way it needs to be tested by a variety of different players and skill levels in order to find the holes in the balance of the map.