Air first viable?

But they shouldn't be designed to work that way, as in to perform the same role as land forces otherwise due to their nature that are unquestionably superior.

As it stands in every SupCom game and even TA, Aircraft are a superior weapon and that's not even close to how aircraft actually work and certainly isn't fun.

As a game of large robot army's a player will never be restricted to using only planes so why balance them (Noting that balance doesn't mean jack) to be used interdependently? You won't be using them like that, and shouldn't so why promote it?

No the way aircraft actually work is they launch missiles and bombs at you before you even know they are there and without even getting near you AA range, and they are preferred because there is a far less chance of fatality than ground units.

But seeing as none of that has absolutely anything to do with this game, I'm not sure why you brought it up.

In FA, air units suck against water when compared to land. Ground units are equally good at shooting everything providing they are in range. Ground units are easier to micro and manoeuvre thanks to them not needing to be constantly moving in a direction to stay in the air. Ground units also tend to have more health.

So yes, you can use them for the same situations. That doesn't mean that air or ground make the best choice all situations.

It amazed me how consistently wrong you are ign. Aircraft were problematic in TA because of one unit - the hawk. Supcom air wasn't as broken because it did not allow ASFs to attack ground units, but restorers were clearly too powerful. The balance in FA worked pretty well. There were certainly circumstances where air was the most effective option (primarily late game large maps, especially maps dominated by ocean or extremely dense terrain), and there were others where it was weak (early game, smaller and/or more open maps). Having classes of units which vary in relative strength based on strategic considerations like that is a good thing. If you want a less air-dominated FA experience don't play 20 minute no rush Seton's, try something like on Open Palms on default settings.

But once again, we're repeating arguments that have been made over and over again. You have not added even a single new thought (nor have I, but that's not surprising since I'm just refuting the same old wrong claims). Go read the old threads. Please. Then, once you have read all 60+ pages of them, if and only if you actually have something new to say on the subject, post about it.

Yes, it's terrible when fans of a game want to contribute to help make it better!

Seriously, unless you're talking pre WWII, aircraft are hands down the most efficient, devastating., powerful weapon in the arsenal of any country.

"Fun" is a subjective term, what you find fun, others don't, and vice versa.
And all of this has nought to do with my OP, which is, should EARLY air be balanced to be a viable option...side tracked somewhat?

"Most efficient"? Really?

M1A2 Abrams per unit cost: ~$8.5M
M829A2 APFSDS round unit cost (per shot): ~$4k
F-22 Raptor per unit cost: ~$150M
F-22 Raptor operating costs/flight hour: ~$45k
AIM-120D AMRAAM unit cost (per shot): ~$700k

Even the much more modest A-10 Thunderbolt II would cost more than double the Abrams in today's money, and cost tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money every time its pilot pushes the fire button. Aircraft are only efficient if you consider shovelling hundred dollar bills into a stove an efficient way of heating your house.

Way to pick the SINGLE MOST EXPENSIVE FIGHTER IN US HISTORY!!

How's this:
A-10 thunderbolt II
Cost: $13 million
Units destroyed in Desert Storm:
987 tanks
926 artillery
1106 trucks
51 SCUD missile launchers

And back the F-22, you realise that the F-22 has achieved astonishing kill ratios in war games, but until it is proved in the field of battle, no definitive comments can be made regardiung this particular units efficiency.

What about WWII?
It is widely regarded that the Japanese attack on Pearl harbour was focused on battleships, whilst aircraft carriers remained intact (some were luckily deployed elsewhere for the most part).
It was air power that decimated the Japanese Navy, Battleships were already a former power.
(Technically, if the Japanese has in fact attacked the huge fuel storage facilities, the outcome of the war might have been very different, but they were not even a target of interest...silly Japanese!).

The probability of collateral damage or loss of life (pilot or civilian) is significantly lower for a plane than a ground unit. Not every situation is viable for a plane, but because of the (in particular, pilot) life-saving benefits they will generally be used when possible.

Also rapid response. Rapid response is nice. So is the lack of logistics needed to set up a fuel and supply base in your operations area (just look at the cost for the US to pull out of any of it's wars in recent history)

Heh. There were 150 A-10s deployed to the Gulf War. That's 6 tank kills, 6 artillery kills and 6 truck kills a piece. Even in a target-rich environment with total air superiority, the notoriously cheap A-10 still didn't kill more than its dollar value in units, since all those kills will be against obsolete Soviet surplus tanks that cost about a mil each. It's not going to get any better than the A-10 in the Gulf War. Planes are just expensive, and militaries only have them because winning in positioning and timing is often worth losing a dollar-for-dollar exchange.

Your WWII example is irrelevant, because propellor planes are cheap, dumb bombs are cheap, and pilots were cheap back then, and WWII AA sucked balls. Trying the same now would have your cheap air force devastated by even cheaper ground-based AA.

Hmm, I think you might want to read up on air superiority
No ground war can be won without that first.
Why?
Because your ground force will be decimated.

This isn't my opinion, but current military doctrine.

The importance of air power cannot be underestimated, if you think it comes down to $$ vs $$, you are wrong.

But all this is off topic...so I'll stop replying to comments on air power vs targets...err ground forces now.