You are starting in 1914 though.  History is in the making and events might turn out differantly than history dictates.

All hail the soviet union.  Long live socialist aviation and such.  We'll sweep you imperialist dogs off the face of the earth yet  

I imagine that's where most of the power consumtion of any fusion reactor comes from.

If you're starting the game in 1914, as I imagine you are, then maybe the US should be given the option of choosing sides too.  It would be more accurate, to some degree there were many in the US who wanted to join the war on the side of the central powers.

and remember, nobody f*cks with the jesus!

TG's quite correct.  Someplace in the rules (I'm geussing the general area of the victory conditions) it states that Japan may win by caturing any allied capital except Szechwan and holding it for a turn.

I've found it a little harder to capture Karelia as Germany than you make it seem, and by taking the Caucasus the Russians can easily wipe out anything that might remain.  Then, what if the US decides to pressure Germany, as they often do?  This creates a serious dilema for Germany;  should they press the offensive in Russia or bolster their defenses to counter the ever increasing horde of Americans being massed in the UK?

I'm up for it, unless the friend of mine who actually owns the games decides he needs to remove it from my house before then; I wouldn't count on that happening though.

"My strat involves amph assulting malta"
That's why I like to put a couple of infantry in Malta, so I can save the plane.

All the errata sheets and replacement pages are included in the full colour and easy to use (well, sort of) second edition.  Do I sound like a walking advertisement to anyone else?

I don't think JFK was anything special; if you really look at what he did and planned, it was not that impressive.  I consider him one of the most over-rated presidents.  I think Eisenhower did a good job, and Clinton wasn't too bad.  If you ignore the scandals and look at his politics (unfortunately they are often confused), they were quite sound.  I'm not a fan of Bush, and I believe LBJ did a rather terrible job; what sort of president would demand that sort of control over the military?  If we're going to have presidents running wars instead of generals, we should be certain they're better qualified first.

try Multiman Publishing  They created ASL and many other great looking games (haven't tried any others yet).

ASL is a hex based WWII tactical warfare game.  Players get to control squads through various scenarios, or make up their own (historical or not).  Of course it's infinately more complex than that.  
The more rules I know the better, eh?  I'll just have to learn the rules as thoroughly as I know A&A's then  

sorry, this was started by me.  If you sort the list by how many posts people have, then you just go to where the people with 0 posts start, then you figure there are 50 (of something) people per page.

I believe the attacker still gets to choose his loses in what you refer to as fly overs.  I interpret the rules as both sorts of battles being rolled the same.  The AA gun fires on the planes, the casualties are removed, and the planes either fly to the next territory or stay and conduct an assualt on the land units (excluding the gun, AA cannot be destroyed).