@Uncrustable:
You want to make fighters too powerful
At the same time creating too much carnage among air units.
No need for any 1:1 with tacs
They get +1 attack and defense with air superioty
This gives very good reason to have a number of both units, while neither is too powerful alone.
Fighters alone would be too weak
Tac bombers alone would be vulnerable to enemy fighters If you want range and SBR you need strat bombers
There is a very good combined arms mechanic here
I don’t understand why you want to make fighters so powerful
In fact, the actual stats make better a purchase of TcB.
Armor A3D3M2C6, TcB A3-4D3-4M4C10, FgA2D2M4C8 and StB A3-4D1M6C12 must be balance together for ground battle.
DD, Cruiser, Carrier and planes must be balance also in naval battle.
I think devil is in the details.
Just one example:
2 StB from AB are launch against 2 Fgs (isolated 1 territory behind front line).
OOB: 2A4 vs 2D4…� A draw, in fact no one will risk to loose 24 IPCs vs 20 IPCs
G40e: 2A4 vs 2D2… Fg are clearly inferior, StB will mostly go for the kill.
Baron-X?: 2A4 vs 2D3, *because there is no ground units with the 2 StBs, 2 Fgs get D+1: in between OOB and G40e.
2 TcBs vs 2 Fgs…
OOB: 2A3 vs 2D4… Advantage Fg vs TcB
G40e: 2A3 vs 2D2… Advantage TcB
Baron-X: 2A3 vs 2D2+1*, a draw.
On 1-on-1 basis vs planes, I think fighter must be as strong as OOB fighter A3 vs TcB � or StB.
Against naval units, the +1 bonus A/D vs plane only should be even more specific:
when there is only planes and Capital Ships (CV and BB), then Fg get +1 A/D. Up to Max A3D4 when combine with +1D bonus from carrier base operation.
Why BB and CV? Because Cruiser and DD can be consider fodder of the sea, and sometimes be destroyed before planes.
Because if you compare a standard fleet, the G40e Fg is really a weaker unit.
1DD+1CA+1BB+1CV… � a-(2Fg) � …b-(1Fg+1TcB) � …c-(2 TcB) vs same hypothetical fleet.
For the example, limit the scope to carrier only.
CV A0D2+ [xFg A3D4 + xTcB A3-4D3]
OOB: CV+ � a- A6D8 � b- A6-7D7 � � c- A6D6… � On defense, you choose a (2 Fgs) / Offense b/ c is worst
G40e: CV+ a-A4D4 � � b- A5-6D5-6 c- A6D6… On defense, you choose c / on offense c / a is worst (2 Fgs)
Baron-x? Cv+ aA4D4+2** � b- A2+A3+1=6/D2+1D3+1=7*** � c- A6D6
** +1D Carrier operation bonus for Fg.
*** + 1A/D bonus to TcB paired 1:1 with Fg (no need of air supremacy), +1D **
Even with those adjustments, you can see that OOB -a- is still the better against naval units.
At least, in Baron-x version:
a-(2 Fgs) can compete on defense D6 vs c-(2 TcBs) D6
and b-(1 Fg+1TcB) becomes a more interesting buying A6D7 vs c (2 TcBs).
So why bother to have Fg on a carrier in the G40e?
Anyway, they will be destroy at the same time of DD taken as casualty (same cost/ same punch) or even before if you need to block subs.
The defensive capacity of carrier has mainly disappeared.
Giving A2D2 against air only, is an interesting aspect when air units are dangerous and hard to hit because there is a massive stack of Inf. But, it is no more an advantage when fighting with TcB or StB against other planes without any fodder units. TcB A3-4 and StB A3-4 will be the better units even if your up against only Fighters D2!
This correction rule for Fg is necessary to balance the value of A/D vs casualty distribution.
Ground units or DDs, Subs and even cruisers are taken as casualties before planes.
And when a battle has reach this climax, the advantage of Fg has vanished, since anyway any hits will take a plane as casualties.
Otherwise, I think it would be better to say that Fg have:
a regular A2D2M4C8 and an additional @1 vs plane, every round.