Bombers VS Battleships and Infentry

In WWII Battleships were determined to be Obsoleet because of bombers. a bomber group would distroy battleships. As of right now battleships are a great way to control sea zones and thats awsome. BUT they need a weekness so if you see a 50 stack comming at you you can do something about it. I feel Bombers should be verry good VS battleships On the other hand it has been determind in wars like Afgan,Vietnam and WWII Air suport is great VS armour because they are hard to hide and require fuel to relocat but VS Infentry there week because Infentry can hide in bomb proof bunkers,Caves or any obtrical that hides them from the view of aproching aircraft, so to reflect this infentry should get some kind of bonus VS Bombers. I hope you take my Ideas to heart becasue it will inprove the all around Battle system in the game.
Suggestions
Inf+5DEF vs bomber
Bomber +6Att VS Battleship
Obviosly if infentry are attacking a place with air suport they will almost always loose thats why i think puting it as a bonus vs there defence on incoming airstrikes is a great way to keep game ballanced

Ya but if inf had + 5 defense they there would be no pint to building or buy air defense units also PD would even be more strong...

Was thinink about BS yeserday.

My thought is BS should get -1 defence in town. I mean they are good in open, they even good in atacking coast lines, but c'mon, 1 shot at the dock - and here is no more dock, therefore BS should use less powerful weapon, leave apart, that half the crew can be at he local whore house.

Totaly disagree TANK is the unit used to kill infentry and bombers are good vs Tank so bombers are needed for tank removal to protect your infentry and for Battleship removal to move over sea zones.
It is Proven you can not win a war with air power alone you always need troops on the ground and the curent game dont reflect this at all.
Bombers should hit stacks of infentry but 1 strike thats it. tanks on the other hand should be 2x as strong as infentry when attacking them and = when defending cince tank is the only artilery piece in the game at present.
Also dont forget Paratropers there attacking infentry and they also can be added to your bombers to help take out citys. UNFORTIONATLY 1 Air transport costs the same as 4 Battleships?????????? whats up with that?

I slightly agree with giving every unit a unit where they are good at and one where they are bad at. This makes stack of death's impossible to use and adds depth to the strategy.

However I heard they want to keep it simplified and so you only have to look at the attack / defence of a unit and not use the names / pictures to determine if they are good against something or not.

I like both

Balancing the game is hard, atm we're trying to balance inf/militia with tanks/bombers/marines.

Think about the scale of this game, it isn't a tactical scale, but a large strategical scale.

Last point : the differents strategies should keep some use, so Ivan and Amok try to make them different ( reflecting a more tactical scale).

Btw the game is more WW3, so in the present.

I love how the game is now and dont think it needs to change much

I Agree with the direction But i find the game is about blitzing, using the clock and big stacks of units. There's little stratagy for what unit to build other then the fastest or the cheepest.
The Defence side of the game its missing alot of stuff.

That said, it being an offence type game you need weekness to offensive unit stacks. Haveing bombers good vs sea and tanks, Tanks good at defence(artilery) and attacking ground units, and infentry resist bombers and tanks on the defence side, will make for a more chalenging game.
I did not forget stelth, merine or sub

SUB should not be able to attack land units at all unless you give them range like there using missle and if thats the case your a sitting duck on land unless you make them act like bombers and concider there attack to be a air attack therefore it hits one time then infentry go find shelter. Plane Att. sub, Plane should also only get 1 shot then the subs submerge(Hence the name)

Stelths VS battleships,Battleship Sunk. Also a good att VS ground troops. But like bombers they to should only get one attack vs infentry< but a really good one;) (Suprize)

Battleships should cost more then a transport and act as a transport becasue it takes around 600 sailers to operate a battleship vs a platoon of infentry is about 50 men, logicly 12 platoons= one ship(thats not going to happen who will drive lol) But 2 to 4 platoons thats possible becasue these troops can operate the battlements abord the battleship while at sea then infiltrate land during invasions. Again it needs to be a Unit added to the ship not part of the crew(this could be an upgrade for SP).

Im looking forward to the responce.

I just reread your coment on Ballanceing land units
HOW about this
1 tanks VS 2 Infentry even on attack
1 inf Vs 1 tank even on deending tank
3 merine vs 2 inf even on attack
5 infentry vs 3 merine even on def
MalitiaVS tank 3-1
Tank VS Malitia same 1 tank=3
MalitiaVS merine 3-2 same on both side IE 1 merine will kill 2 militia or defend against 2
InfentryVSMalita 2-1 same on both sides Infentry ar basicly better armed merines but not able to do the sea part. (more gun Less Flexability)

Now adding tanks to any attacking unit they should gain an attack bonus and an aditional attack bonus if you add air units.
this bonus should also be avalable for the defending side as well.
Example 3 tanks attack 2 infentry with air suport of one bomber. the bomber would actualy be attacking the tanks before the infentry ever had to engadge the tanks
Merine on the other hand would go for the week spot distroying the airport and planes before they got off the ground then continue fighting infentry(and defender would have infentry based at the airport so no bonus when using merine att for the defender.

Hope this helps.

I think the unit weights are fine, there's plenty of scenario's to think of where infantry and even militia can easily kill tanks in urban zones (it only takes one cheap Russian anti tank missile), and vice versa there's plenty of reasons why 1 tank would beat infantry in many other scenarios. The same can be said for battleships, bombers, and so on.

What slightly annoys me personally (And I'm saying this as a SM user who does this very often), is that a stack of 100 bombers and 1 infantry can take a town. In any real scenario there would be a really good chance that one infantry would die. The solution? Randomize casualties. The combat system could work the same, but instead of the attacking/defending unit dying, a random unit in the stack would die. This could potentially create some other issues (e.g. a stack of militia + one high attack unit could be devastating if the militias die first), so maybe some weights would be in order.

Furthermore, maybe there should be bonuses for mixed forces. In any real war, a navy, airforce or land army is hardly ever on it's own. An armies' strength comes from the synergy of ground forces in advanced positions, tanks to break strongholds, and navy and airforce to provide naval and air support. Perhaps a joined attack with infantry, bombers and tanks should give some offensive bonuses to all units involved. Similarly, on the defensive side, an army of only infantry is not likely to be very effective against bombers, however if Anti Air and other units are added, the entire army becomes more effective. How about giving the entire defensive stack +1 against air if Anti Air is present, instead of just a massive bonus for the Anti Air itself?

As an SM player this entire post revolves (perhaps too much) around air units, but I think the same can be done with a lot of unit combinations, and might make the game a lot more balanced and varied. However on the other hand, the learning curve would be quite steep I imagine.