But - how significant are the new changes

[Kool Kat]

[/quote]

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.

Well stated here. :)

Let this be a warning not to "over step" the simulation boundary limitations, scope and CS engine capability - especially in an effort to introduce "new" game content.

I like new units as much as the next person...

However...

I play CS because it simulates WWII-era land combat with the supporting air and seaborne elements. The supporting elements need to remain second to the core and heart of CS - WWII-era land combat. Also, IMO, these supporting elements should never detract or become a kind of "mini-game" within CS.

My two cents.