Just two... or rather, three, with Jim stepping aside for Noel on the Axis side halfway through.

Exactly what I intend to do...

I see bombers as being used in the game in two ways:

1) As additional aircraft in "fly and die" games. They will have point values like fighters -- and of the bombers I've statted up so far, their costs are equivalent (if not better) than the fighters.

2) In actual bombing runs, where they must maintain formation, speed, and altitude across the board lengthwise. Any bomber that makes it across scores VPs for its side. The point cost of the bomber itself will be reduced appropriately, since its "dogfighting" effectiveness will drop considerably...

I don't know if torpedo and dive bombers should be treated the same way or differently, since I don't know if they had to stay "in formation" like strategic bombers did...

I belive not to the same extent that strat. bombers did.

Torpedo bombers tenned to make their runs in flight's or less I belive. (At least Brits did on attacks at torentino and on the bismark.

But they would tend to keep to a fromation to get to the target to an extent for mutal protection.

So I think both options are still viable, through the first is more likely for them.

We did well. Some nice sweeps by squadrons trapped some isolated opponents. But where we were evenly matched things stayed balanced. Given that our planes were "cheaper" that kept us ahead nicely and drove the Allies from the air.

I felt that that numbers - speed and hits - were a bit high, in that they could drag the game out some. Though, with fewer planes that may be just about right. Hard to judge from that crowded table.