[Henry_Shrapnel]

That's very interesting. I was hoping there might be other players who realize that only full scale maps belong in a game that was intended to be modeled after the real world as apposed to a fantasy like world that is out of scale. I would suggest however that IL2 is best suited for tactical level gaming which is why to me it makes more sense to have the maps only cover a smaller section of the world. To me the most important thing is that a reasonable attempt is made to model the most significant features of an area and to keep the distance from one point to the next as accurate as possible. Also the altitudes of the mountains should be about the same as in the real world. Obviously however every detail can't possibly be accurate or the map would take too long too load to be practical. I've heard the argument that reduced scale maps make it possible to play campaign style games however I don't buy that at all. If an island for example were about 100 miles long and about 50 miles wide in the real world and someone creates a map to which they claim is the same island but it is only 75 miles long and 37.5 miles wide, I would submit that they have not modeled the island that they claim to have modeled and it is instead a fictitious island. Not modeling every little feature of each town will have very little effect on game play while reducing the height of the mountains and distances from one airfield to another by 50 or 25 % would have a huge effect on the game play. The bottom line is that it wouldn't be at all the same mission on a reduced scale map and it would be delusional in my opinion to pretend that it is the same mission as the one at full scale.