I agree with most of the "balancing changes" however I really disagree with the reduction in TAC hit points. The reasoning or explanation isn't valid and unjustified in my opinion: "Unstoppable air force..." (No air force and no army is unstoppable.) "It was necessary to decrease their hit points to make maintaining a large airforce more challenging."
1. The number of hit points has no correlation to whether a player has 1 TAC or 25 TAC. It is a 20% reduction in survivability of TAC during a mission whether on patrol or attack. You will need more TAC to accomplish what you needed to do prior to this adjustment. So the result is to build more TAC, not "manage it". A capable player, doesn't fly his tac until its destroyed, you move it out of harms way to recover its health. The same as before this change but now this asset has to be removed after fewer missions to sit and recover. (Unless you are in the other camp and "keep flying it until its dead camp" which I am not.)
2. Previously, if TAC was a problem, you build interceptors to chew them up. If they flew with interceptors, you kill the interceptors then kill the TAC. That is how you defeat the threat is with air superiority. If you can't build an airforce, you build AA. From my point of view, this change placates and encourages players to "super stack" their low cost units without air cover or without AA since moving forward only more ground units will destroy ground units now.
3. The common tenant in this game that I have found to be so attractive is that every asset has a strength and it has a weakness or alt unit that has an advantage to it (i.e. anti tank vs tanks: AA vs aircraft) Each unit has its place and proper application in battle. This change is really unbalances the game in this respect as TAC is now handicapped.
4. If you really believe this is the right decision, then increase the TAC SBDE from 5 to 6. Its not the same affect but what else can be done to mitigate the damage? The other option is to increase the damage by interceptors on infantry and armor units. But that risks unbalancing the game in that respect as well.
1. The number of hit points has no correlation to whether a player has 1 TAC or 25 TAC. It is a 20% reduction in survivability of TAC during a mission whether on patrol or attack. You will need more TAC to accomplish what you needed to do prior to this adjustment. So the result is to build more TAC, not "manage it". A capable player, doesn't fly his tac until its destroyed, you move it out of harms way to recover its health. The same as before this change but now this asset has to be removed after fewer missions to sit and recover. (Unless you are in the other camp and "keep flying it until its dead camp" which I am not.)
2. Previously, if TAC was a problem, you build interceptors to chew them up. If they flew with interceptors, you kill the interceptors then kill the TAC. That is how you defeat the threat is with air superiority. If you can't build an airforce, you build AA. From my point of view, this change placates and encourages players to "super stack" their low cost units without air cover or without AA since moving forward only more ground units will destroy ground units now.
3. The common tenant in this game that I have found to be so attractive is that every asset has a strength and it has a weakness or alt unit that has an advantage to it (i.e. anti tank vs tanks: AA vs aircraft) Each unit has its place and proper application in battle. This change is really unbalances the game in this respect as TAC is now handicapped.
4. If you really believe this is the right decision, then increase the TAC SBDE from 5 to 6. Its not the same affect but what else can be done to mitigate the damage? The other option is to increase the damage by interceptors on infantry and armor units. But that risks unbalancing the game in that respect as well.