@Young:
AAAHHH… my bad, Danish Straits it shall be. hope you don’t think I was bieng an A55, I respect and look forward to all your input, as you are my favorite A&A.org historian.
No problem. I’ve seen enough war movies to understand the principle that artistic license sometimes has to take priority over strict historical accuracy, and I respect that. When I point out (potential) issues that have caught my attention, it’s not with the aim of convincing you to change a particular house rule detail (after all, your rules are yours to do with as you please) but just to make sure you’re aware of something that might simply be an oversight rather than an intentional artistic compromise. If it bothered me to have some of these sugggestions turned down, I wouldn’t be taking the trouble to make them in the first place.
Amusing footnote: I once head a military historian complain that it can negatively impact one’s career to agree to be a consultant for a movie because the following happens frequently: Professor So-and-so agrees to be the historical consultant for a military-themed movie. He reviews the script, finds a bunch of errors (both subtle and outrageous) and points them out to the director. The director replies, “Well, yes, you’re right, but cinematically it would be more effective and exciting to leave the script as it is.” The movie gets shot according to the script, and then gets released. All the historians and history buffs in the audience groan at the mistakes, then notice that the end credits say “Historical Consultant: Professor So-and-so”, and they conclude that Professor So-and-so is an incompetent historian.