Well, Patriota and Edepedable, I see your point.
The longer the game takes, the less usable become ground units. Finally on day 40, planes get another research level (while AA doesn't) and nuclear rockets become researchable. From then on, you can throw your ground units into the bin when facing a competent human opponent. And I also don't like this game design. It just isn't satisfying and feels strange that end game is for rockets and planes ONLY.
Also iDragons' arguments are only one part of the story: Yes, a tactical bomber costs 4 times as much resources as a AA gun (not counting manpower as a resource now, cause that's abundant in many situations... our other topic^^). But they have twice the HP and that immense mobility advantage. They decide which ground stack they want to attack - never the other way round.
And again yes, a stack with 11 AA guns and a few SPAA is not attackable from the air. But investment for such a big stack is high - you can have only very few of them. Not enough to win a war and a pretty target for rockets.
Bottom line is yes, in mid and even more so late game airforce can be called superior over ground units. But that's in a way quite the development that weapon technology has gone through in between 1940 and 1950. Thing is in CoW, mid and much more so late game ground units are additionally threatened by some kind of 1980s cruise missiles and nuclear rockets. Not air dominance should be reduced (at least not much, and if so, only for late game!!), but the capability of rockets to destroy units. For example the way I described in my fifth post in this thread. That would be a sufficient relieve for ground units.
The longer the game takes, the less usable become ground units. Finally on day 40, planes get another research level (while AA doesn't) and nuclear rockets become researchable. From then on, you can throw your ground units into the bin when facing a competent human opponent. And I also don't like this game design. It just isn't satisfying and feels strange that end game is for rockets and planes ONLY.
Also iDragons' arguments are only one part of the story: Yes, a tactical bomber costs 4 times as much resources as a AA gun (not counting manpower as a resource now, cause that's abundant in many situations... our other topic^^). But they have twice the HP and that immense mobility advantage. They decide which ground stack they want to attack - never the other way round.
And again yes, a stack with 11 AA guns and a few SPAA is not attackable from the air. But investment for such a big stack is high - you can have only very few of them. Not enough to win a war and a pretty target for rockets.
Bottom line is yes, in mid and even more so late game airforce can be called superior over ground units. But that's in a way quite the development that weapon technology has gone through in between 1940 and 1950. Thing is in CoW, mid and much more so late game ground units are additionally threatened by some kind of 1980s cruise missiles and nuclear rockets. Not air dominance should be reduced (at least not much, and if so, only for late game!!), but the capability of rockets to destroy units. For example the way I described in my fifth post in this thread. That would be a sufficient relieve for ground units.