Okay, I notice there are a lot of posts about how unrealistic it is that the TEC capital ships don't have anti-strikecraft weapons (KOL flak being the exception). If you guys want realistic, then 3 or 4 hits from a SINGLE bomber should kill ANY capital ship. Oh, I bet there aren't many people wanting that level of realism, are there?
Bombers are already massively downgraded in power, I don't see the need to make them even less capable by equipping all capital ships with powerful point defense weapons.
And
THAT is exactly the problem with the current system. In my word, like I put it earlier, the current system feel very artificial as opposed to being realistic.
Balance, by all means, is not just about math. In your example you are only look at one side of the issue: Yes, even the most formidable battleships in WWII can hardly withstand the number of direct hit torpedo hits up to two digits. If my memory is correct, the Yamato only took 7 hits before she went down. Now, but does that mean the US only needed to send in 7 Torpedo bombers to do the job? No, about 400 aircrafts were sortied for that battles, to make that 7 hits happen.
It's not just about crunching in number. The current system is technically both side got nerfed to achieve an artificial balance rather then a realistic balance. That's why I propose bombers should be more powerful while at the same time there should be more defense against them, that still maintains the original balance, but the difference is between an artificial and a realistic one.
