I am pretty sure the current properties about air warfare are complicated and insufficient. After rethinking some ideas finally came up:

1. Need more type of air units and their roles shold be definitely separated like as I said

-Fighter: Dogfighting and protecting air units only
-CAS: Supporting ground units and sinking enemy ships
-NAV: Sinking enemy ships only but performing better than CAS
-Bomber: Strategic bomber only
-TAC: Do whatever CAS,NAV,Bomber but its jack of all trades master of none.

Not separating their roles would make even one single air unit too good and also too boring. For more variety of strategies it is really must I can't see any other way.

2. Dependence of performance on range

Another really a must thing without it small/medium maps would be really unplayable.

How possible to add these kind of new properties on the next version?

The problem might be specific to me only since in my native language there are two separate letters as "ı" and "i". The similar problem had occured when I downloaded v3,v4,v5 and revised. They are all downloaded like wwıı not wwii then I had edited them manuelly.

There were two properties belong unts which are;

<option name="isAirTransportable" value="false"/>
<option name="IsAirTransportable" value="true"/>

And I deleted all IsAirTransportables and it works right now. Originally were they air transportable or not?

Why do they start with so many units?

Eki 11, 2019 11:58:10 AM games.strategy.engine.framework.ui.GameChooserEntry fullyParseGameData
SEVERE: Could not parse:jar:file:/C:/Users/Acer/triplea/downloadedMaps/cold_war_1965-master.zip!/cold_war_1965-master/map/games/ColdWar-1965.xml
games.strategy.engine.data.GameParseException: map name: 'jar:file:/C:/Users/Acer/triplea/downloadedMaps/cold_war_1965-master.zip!/cold_war_1965-master/map/games/ColdWar-1965.xml', game name: 'Cold War: 1965', Missing property definition for option 'ısAirTransportable' in attachment 'unitAttachment'

There is an issue in "ısAirtransportable" part. I did fail to open the map.

I belive triplea should really need functional air warfare which may be took place in any territory not only Factory territories. Just I want to detect my wish list before pulling any request.

1. What are the optimal air attack/air defense powers for fighters/bombers

2. Would they need additional technologies?

3. Would we need more fighter models such as

-close air support (low range-supports land units),

-light fighter (normal range-protect fighters/fights with enemy fighters),

-NAV (attacks enemy ships only),

-Bomber (High range-strategic bomber),

-Tactical Bomber (High range, supports land units/attack ships/strategic bomber but thye perform worse in all of these categories.)

4. Should AA be destroyable with strategic bombings?

5. Ay more ideas?

First depucling incomes of all territories, starting Pus,tech costs but still keeping the original production capacities. Then cost/upkeep ratio becomes somewhat like this;

Conscript: 20/2
Infantry: 30/3
Cavalry: 35/3 (m.warfare provides carrying inf ability)
Field: 35/3 (with ww)
Heavy 45/4 (with ww)
Gas 30/2 (with ww)
Fighter 80/5 (with ww)
Trench 30/2
Zeppelin: 140/5 (new stats are 2/1/5 instead of 1/2/5)
Colonial: 30/3
S.Trooper: 30/3
L.Fighter: 100/5
Transport: 60/3
Sub: 60/3
Destroyer: 80/4
Cruiser: 90/5
Carrier: 120/6
B.Cruiser: 140/6
B.Ship: 200/9

British Columbia is not connected to sz 153

It would be enough modding or drawing additinal territories on the current maps. I am sure most of players will care balance more rather than realism and they naturally contradict with each other because WW1 was heavily favoured of Entente. With such a realistic concept only very few people would play it.