This all beside the fact that, of course, a sea borne assault of Gibraltar would be suicidal with land units only: the guns at Gibraltar would sink whatever thing which can transport land units before it reaches the shoreline. (I'm not an expert, so I do not know if there is any blind spot anywhere, but I doubt that there is any one or that would make a difference in this case.)

The question, in this case, would be whether or not the guns can be silenced with battleships and/or huge bombs, to make the landings possible at all.

Of course, this would be even more special rules for Gibraltar: I'm not proposing them, just saying.

@KurtGodel7 said:

If Gibraltar's garrison is limited, that means it can't be defended against Allied attack.

To be clear, if you can have at most X land units in Gibraltar (which would need to be decided based on a guess of how many infantrymen is an infantry units and the broad assumption that the other land units take about the same space when deployed or in reserve but ready for immediate deployment), you can also attack Gibraltar with at most X land units. (No other rules for land units here.) This would make Gibraltar actually more defensible, possibly much more defensible.

(Obviously, this is an approximation: you should realistically be able to attack with infinite land units but only Y at the same time, with Y lower than X, then, when you win, every land unit exceeding X goes back to the transports (because it never left them), but I'm not proposing front-line based limits or anything else other than a max X both stacking and attacking for a few very small territories like Gibraltar and Midway. Ideally, every territory for which X would be greater than 10 gets infinite - so no limit - for simplicity (yes, an arbitrary upper limit over which not to bother): this would likely include Malta and every island bigger than Malta depending on how many men an infantry unit is representing.)

Moving on to air limits, Gibraltar would also have a maximum air unit limit to land (like an aircraft carrier) (again, arbitrary and limited only to a few extremely small territories like Midway etc.). In this case, however, there is no limit for attacking air units over Gibraltar. (Again, I'm not claiming this is very realistic.)

Practically, the land limit would favour the defenders, and the air limit would favour the attackers.

In case of paratroopers, the limit would be total on land units. For example, if Gibraltar has a land unit limit of 2, you can offload 2 land units, or para-drop 2 land units or 1 of each, no more. (Again, a simplification.)

My point is not that this would be highly realistic, just that it would be more realistic than nothing, everything else being the same (and it is meant to be limited to Gibraltar, Midway and at most a few other similar cases if not just these two).

Whether or not something like Gibraltar could be attacked with paratroopers at all is of course a disputable matter. Personally, I would say that a simple rule that Gibraltar can never be attacked with paratroopers unless completely undefended would be a good special rule to add for Gibraltar and anything else about as small as Gibraltar (as an approximation of how insanely borderline suicidal would such a thing be). An arguably more realistic rule would be limiting it to the unused stacking limit. For example, if Gibraltar has a limit of 2, then you cannot para-drop if there are 2 defenders, can paradrop at most 1 if there is 1 defender and can paradrop at most 2 if it is undefended by land units. In any case, the total attacking land units would never be more than 2.

@Cernel said:

Gibraltar was only 6.8 square kilometres and certainly not plain.

This means that, depending on roughly how much your infantry is supposed to be in terms of infantrymen and stuff, and assuming that artillery, armour and so on are similarly limited, you can have a very low units limit.

This would be both realistic and helping with keeping low the needed area of Gibraltar for showing units in there.

I asked the "AI Mode" of Google "What is the maximum number of infantrymen which could have been defensively deployed in Gibraltar during 1941?"

This was the answer:

During 1941, the maximum number of infantrymen defensively deployed in Gibraltar was approximately 7,000 soldiers, organized into two brigades.
This infantry element formed the backbone of the overall 16,000-man total defensive garrison stationed on the Rock at the time, which also included large numbers of artillerymen, anti-aircraft crews, and Royal Engineers.

If the question is framed around structural capacity rather than actual troop counts, the British military dramatically expanded the Rock's underlying infrastructure during this period. Royal Engineers and Canadian engineers excavated an extensive 25-mile network of underground tunnels, living spaces, and hidden fortresses.
Upon its completion, this massive subterranean complex was designed with a maximum theoretical capacity to fully house, protect, and sustain a force of 30,000 men for up to 16 months without external resupply.

You could say that the physical land area Britain actually owned for Gibraltar was small. Too small to station a large army there. Okay, you're probably right about this.

But suppose a nation wanted to station a large army in or near Gibraltar. Because of the lack of room for the army, it would need to take some nearby land from Spain. Germany invades Spain on its very first turn. The concept of taking land away from Spain is hardly far-fetched for this map.

A better example of a space constraint is Midway. Unlike Gibraltar, there is no nearby land for someone to seize if they need more space. The American government stationed planes on Midway--but only a limited number, because space was constrained. If I wanted to simulate this source of realism--which I don't--I would create a small island rule. If something is categorized as a "small island" its garrison must be limited in size.

It's easy to create a lot of rules, exceptions, and special cases, all in favor of realism. Individually each may seem relatively harmless. Their collective weight burdens the player. Before I say yes to anything like this, I ask, "How does this improve game play?" Suppose the answer is, "this was never intended to benefit game play. Its only purpose was to make the game more realistic." At that point, the idea can be dropped. Added complexity is never justified by realism for the sake of realism.

WWII saw enormous technological progress. Production capacity greatly increased. Nations' armies were limited by their available manpower. There was an air war. Losing the air war meant your enemy could strafe your armies and bomb your factories. Flames and Steel is intended to do a much better job of simulating all of this than a normal TripleA map would. I embraced realism in those specific areas because I thought it would improve game play. Adding those things would give the player a richer array of strategic choices.

If Gibraltar's garrison is limited, that means it can't be defended against Allied attack. Which means that America Atlantic's fleet could enter the Mediterranean. Allowing America Atlantic's fleet access to the Mediterranean is a decision about game play. Currently, I believe that the better decision for game play is to allow the Axis to harden Gibraltar, and thus keep the Allies out. If I'm persuaded otherwise--if it turns out that allowing the Allies into the west Mediterranean really would lead to a better game--then I will change rules to allow that to more easily happen.

@Vendetta said:

@KurtGodel7 Rhodes and the Canaries look a lot better now, and most of the naming issues got fixed.

The Philippines are kind of hideous, should see if Claude can try to focus on getting the shape of the islands down better.

The Gibraltar box is another problem spot where the name is floating outside of it. As a magnified blowup area, the square will probably look better if it has a lines or arrow at the corner that connects it with the land enclave.

Lebanon still cuts too far inland. Damascus should share a border with Palestine/Transjordan, and Lebanon should not touch Nejd at all.

One other issue I can see is that neutral and French territories are indistinguishable in color. Even if Vichy France is treated as a neutral power for gameplay purposes, it probably still ought to have its own distinct color to tell it apart from genuine nonbelligerents.

The new map:

Vichy France. When I was first telling Claude to create this map, I had a decent discussion with it about Vichy France. I think Claude had wanted to simulate realism with respect to diplomacy as it pertained to Vichy France. I saw that as one added source of complexity. Added complexity is never justified just to make something more realistic. For complexity to justify itself, it must add to strategic depth. It must give players real choices. To avoid that here, I told Claude to make all Vichy French territory neutral, and to have it defended just like any other neutral territory. Problem solved.

Yes, I could make it a different color than other neutral territory. But that would indicate to the player that Vichy French neutral territory was being treated differently by the game engine than other neutral territory. It would be a false information signal, done for purely historical reasons, and disconnected from actual game play. If someone wants to propose ideas for how Vichy France can be handled I'm all ears. My one constraint is that I would want it handled in a nice, simple way, with no diplomacy-related decisions by the player whatever.

Flames and Steel has avoided diplomacy altogether, except that on rounds 1 and 2 Japan's only wars are against China and neutrals; and America is not at war at all.