I've got some questions about the bonus structures, how they were decided, and if they're truly balanced?
For example, there are a lot more connection points, for the most part they aren't bad in that they connect to some of the same territories that are already open to attack, but I would think if there's more points from where a bonus can be attacked it it'd be a worthwhile case to increase the value of that bonus? Some of my concerns are with Eastern Forest, N. Amazon (btw, why do some names have North/South abbreviated, and others not? It wouldn't take too much more space to have them all extended?), Central Andes and N. Meso America.
Also, I don't think the Indies is a worthwhile amount either. The previous one which was exclusively in FNNA had 3 terr, where it could be broken from 2 places for a bonus of 2, the new one is now 5 terr. where it can be broken from 4 places which doesn't make it useful at +3 for me. Similar could be said for N. Amazon? I understand why it was reduced in amount because of 2 less terr, but I feel the extra breakable point makes it even.
Tbh, the only backing I have for this, is that if you look at it on a more holistic level, If you hold both those bonuses, it's 10 regions that are breakable from 6 places, as compared to places like Plains (9 broken from 6) and Subarctic (8 broken from 5) which have larger bonus values, it doesn't really compare?
Just something to think about from my side...