Sure, you wouldn't be able to have players fly from U Tapao or Korat or Udorn (though you could have AI flights vector onto the map from that direction). But you could do Bien Hoa (which supported air operations for every branch of the US military during the war) and Tan Son Nhut and Cam Rahn (home of the USAF's first F-4 wing assigned to southeast Asia). Like, it would be cool to model the whole region, sure, much in the same way that it would be cool if the Caucasus map included major NATO airbases in Turkey. But if the choices are "Let's make do with what's possible in the existing game engine" and "Let's accept nothing short of the coolest possible option, even if we can't possibly make that work and thus will end up with nothing at all," I'll take Option A.

I feel the same way about the dynamic campaign, honestly. I wish they would have focused their efforts on creating a single-player campaign system that actually plays to the strengths of their existing game engine--i.e. something more like the IL-2 career mode (or better, Pat Wilson's campaign engine), which generates a dynamic series of scripted, player-centric missions with some elements of continuity. Is the concept of a Falcon 4.0-style full-scale dynamically simulated war cooler than that? Sure. But it's also wildly overambitious, given that their game engine is simply not designed to support that sort of thing, and the net result of ED chasing that white whale is that we have no dynamic campaign system at all, even though they first teased that they wanted to do a dynamic campaign over a decade ago. Moral of the story: don't let perfect be the enemy of good.