But - how significant are the new changes

[K K Rossokolski]

I understand completely where you are coming from.

On the other hand, unless you are playing a von Earlmann Campaign with these included, you would rarely, if every, see them in an officially released scenario or LCG/DCG.

This may be so, but you miss the real point. The fact that I don't have to use something is a pretty weak argument for keeping it in the full-up shed. CS is a simulation. By definition, it should not incorporate elements that do not simulate. It simulates WWII-era land combat....within its limitations, it does this vey well indeed. That is why we play it. We dont play it for the River Plate scenario, but for the Invasion of Europe, or Kursk, or Bougainville. It quite adequately simulates seaborne elements supporting the land battle. It has some capability to simulate some air aspects, although there are weaknesses here.. You and your team have done terrific work improving the game, new countries, new units, filling capability gaps, much more. 99.99% of it is an honest copy of the real thing. You have in all but ONE case remained faithful to a fundamental of simulation...... nothing happens in the simulator that doesn't happen in real life. But in real life, aeroplanes parked on airfields don't drop bombs on targets 10 miles away. You make a joke of the whole thing by including it.

As I see it, CS copies stuff pretty well, both in absolute and relative terms. . Nothing I can think of is egregiously bad....until the arrival of the bathtub navy. I say, as a career Naval professional, that this addition displays no understanding of naval affairs . It is so weak...the "submarine" is beyond parody.... that it laughs at the rest of the effort. Don't need it, so why have it. CS is about LAND warfare, or rather the SIMULATION thereof.