[quote=@Cyclone]
To be blunt I think it's really stupid to say, "We didn't have a major war, therefore there would be no arms race and nations would not have developed *insert technology here*".

What's the point of saying that the tech level is what the real world was at during the 1940's if we don't have all the stuff that was created as a result of WWI? Wouldn't not having that studf make us behind 1940 in tech?

And as in for jet engines, [@Voltus_Ventus] I don't remember you ever giving a reason why you banned them. Granted I probably wouldn't have gotten jet engines anyways so I don't care much, I'm just curious as to your reasoning.

[/quote]Well, without immediate incentive like a war people would be still competing and such but without direct experiences some nations may not even realize the true importance of aircrafts, most nations won't.
Jet engines were in development regardless, though. But without a war going on the nations are unlikely to push the research until they can get the jet plane.
Even if jets are availible it took Germans about 2-3 years during the war to actually get a jet plane. So yeah, I like to take the situation on jet fighers as "not yet".

As for what 1940 tech means, it's up to interpretation. We are running on an alternate history which even has fantasy elements. Also as you could read my and ASTA's reactions in the OOC, most nations are actually having stuff in their military which was made in 1942-43 or even later. So yeah.
Another thing is that due to various reasons you can expect a fair number of schizo tech examples here. Robotic horses are advanced even by modern standards yet a nation has them in great masses for their cavalry.

Anyways, the problem with jets could be that on paper they make typical propeller aircraft obsolete in air combat. Then again that's a misconception since jets were only semi-successful during WW2 and even after that they had maintenance and reliability problems until the 60s.
Not to mention that your typical jet fighter with missile locks and such is really a thing by the 70s and preferably later.
So yeah, having jet fighters doesn't make anything OP.
This is like limiting firearms in medieval fantasy, missing the whole point that guns were a thing even before anyone began creating plate mails.
On the other hand I agree that it'd be better if jets fighters are developed only later and even then they'd be relatively rare.
Like I said if we ignore everything but the basic specs: jets > props
Which may be problematic if some nation has great number of jet fighters. It'd start a kind of arms race between players and in the end we pretty much get typical Cold War era weapons in really short time.
That's not something I would want.

[quote=@Mihndar]
On the tech dispute, I would argue to keep the limit because if you raise it people are just going to put up even more advanced stuff to account for it. And most of it doesn't lie that far out of WW2 if at all, though some things (like flying aircraft carriers) should probably be nipped in the bud.
[/quote]I wouldn't mind if we would keep this at 1940ish levels but I can adopt if we do it differently.
I already adjusted my "main" interceptor's speed to mid-late WW2 prop levels (or somewhat above, just look at the engine to weight ratio) and added various hardpoint options which very a pretty typical thing by this time.

As for air motherships, there's nothing too off about them.
Mothership concept in itself is known since WW1. And we have a "super gas" lighter than hydrogen and noncombustible so there's even more reason to invest in airships. They seem to be pretty much the "thing" of this setting. I can barely count the nations who don't own them and the number of nations who arm them up like battleships is similarly large.
Voltus_Ventus for example has airships with armament similar to the Iowa battleship, although hopefully not as armored.