The balancing changes are good.
At least these:
* Increasing AC damage vs. armoured units: . Very good. Probably not enough to make them a good choice in many situations and also not enough to reflect reality (thinking of later models like SdKfz234/4, carrying a 75mm gun). But an important step in the right direction (If that's an easy change, I propose additionally Xarus' idea: make level 2 researchable from day 6. This would make researching them attractive in many games. But still not building them in masses - so they would only be used as single units for example for scouting or catching unguarded artillery, as in reality).
* Nerfing tactical bombers: . That was essential. So far, using them a lot was the only reasonable strategy. In all games and all situations. Which had - for example - the negative effect that you were almost always forced to cluster your ground forces to 2 or 3 giant armies of a size that Napoleon would have been proud of. But which didn't exist in 20th century warfare. With these changes, we will see a seamless frontline more often - just as generals built up during WW2. And players will have to find the right strategy in each game and in each situation anew. You will actually have to think. Which most people want from a strategy game. It is logical that a big part of the community opposes the change, since many strategy lovers already had left the game due to the overpowered tactical bombers we had until now. So we don't hear their voice here. But from now on, the game will attract more of them, which is very good.
* Increasing damage strategical bombers vs. buildings: Yeees, very good. In WW2, strategical bombers played a relevant role. Whereas in CoW, it never made sense to research them (so far).
* Increasing range of atomic bomber: Yep.
* Increasing costs of rockets: Very good. In CoW they have some abilities they really didn't have at around 1942. Nerfing them is good, so they're no longer a standard option.
At least these:
* Increasing AC damage vs. armoured units: . Very good. Probably not enough to make them a good choice in many situations and also not enough to reflect reality (thinking of later models like SdKfz234/4, carrying a 75mm gun). But an important step in the right direction (If that's an easy change, I propose additionally Xarus' idea: make level 2 researchable from day 6. This would make researching them attractive in many games. But still not building them in masses - so they would only be used as single units for example for scouting or catching unguarded artillery, as in reality).
* Nerfing tactical bombers: . That was essential. So far, using them a lot was the only reasonable strategy. In all games and all situations. Which had - for example - the negative effect that you were almost always forced to cluster your ground forces to 2 or 3 giant armies of a size that Napoleon would have been proud of. But which didn't exist in 20th century warfare. With these changes, we will see a seamless frontline more often - just as generals built up during WW2. And players will have to find the right strategy in each game and in each situation anew. You will actually have to think. Which most people want from a strategy game. It is logical that a big part of the community opposes the change, since many strategy lovers already had left the game due to the overpowered tactical bombers we had until now. So we don't hear their voice here. But from now on, the game will attract more of them, which is very good.
* Increasing damage strategical bombers vs. buildings: Yeees, very good. In WW2, strategical bombers played a relevant role. Whereas in CoW, it never made sense to research them (so far).
* Increasing range of atomic bomber: Yep.
* Increasing costs of rockets: Very good. In CoW they have some abilities they really didn't have at around 1942. Nerfing them is good, so they're no longer a standard option.