@barney:
I like the idea of bomber A3 +1 when paired with a fighter Baron. It’s the same way TACs are used. Also like the idea of fighter intercepts and escorts A2.
The increased range would be bombers greatest asset as well as being able to hit factories.
Nothing too radical and should be easy to adjust to.
I also like the +1 when no enemy planes are present as well.
I think deeper about this Strategic and Tactical Bomber issue.
I believe the right historically inspired rules for them should have been the following, but the StB was too iconic to make such a change:
TACTICAL BOMBER
ATTACK 4
DEFENSE 3
MOVE 4
COST 11
Paired 1:1 with Tank, gives +1D to Tank (an historical point which I kept on defense to counter-balance the Attack @4 in all situations.)
TBR Attack 1 Damage 1D6
STRATEGIC BOMBER
Attack 3 rise to 4
when no enemy’s plane (+1 Attack due to Air Supremacy bonus) or
when paired 1:1 with Fighter
Defense 1
Move 6
Cost 12
SBR Attack 1 Damage 1D6+2
That way, when StBs are attacking a SZ without any Fighter support, then their attack value will be 3 while the defending Fg will keep their high Defense @4.
It will be only when they are paired with 1 Fighter escort per StB, that they can rise to an even combat Attack 4 against Defense @4.
I said more historical combat value because between TcBs and StBs, it seems to me that StBs were much more sitting duck than TcBs. So, it should have been StB which clearly needs a combined arms for Fighter support. Many TacBs types of Fg-bomber or Light-Bomber were able to fly without escort.
Here is what I would prefer as Fg unit to fix the other balance issue in SBR:
FIGHTER
Attack 3
Defense 4
Move 4
Cost 10
Gives +1A to StB when paired 1:1
SBR Attack 2 Defense 2