Agreed. there are somany nations in Americas which can contest and fight each other so you can bring pacific region to west of americas.

@Dhiras thats just cap they cant, it will be Sahara vs Japan extension, none of the nations there especially in the west coast will be able to 1v1 a big nation fleet. The nations in west coast dont even have industry for 2 ships (excluding Western Empire or known as hurdsells nation)

As for distance dont worry, atleast on the vicinity of the coast of california they can make towns to reinforce it using puppet states of their choice. Id say in the old Pacific it wasnt possible without making a whole new nation. This doesnt mean its a good thing

You should know that Pacific had not been contested by Americans for over 1.5 years, so its removal is hardly a blow to them. That being said, I was already actively considering bringing it to the US West Coast. Still not sure whether I'll do it, but I may.

Okay but can you explain why there are 2 siege regions next to eachother, almost never contested and is a money generator for britain. It would be good to remove one of them cause i see 0 reason why would there be 2 right next to eachother.

Those regions are not even remotely comparable.

They can be reasonably contested, but, for whatever reason, people are choosing not to contest it frequently.

But they do have the *means* to contest. That's the key distinction to be made here. There is no shortage of ports belonging to different opposing nations along the Atlantic coasts. Nobody in good faith can argue that "Atlantic is *intrinsically* non-competitive".

Pacific, on the other hand, was a geographically isolated region located in am area of the world in which every local nation has joined the same alliance, and due to a variety of factors, this diplomatic arrangement is likely to be very long-lasting, if not permanent.

I honestly think instead of an outright removal pacific should replace Indian somewhere closer to Saharan waters.