This may need to go in its own thread, but here are my thoughts on the whole "bombers and the like are disproportionally more dangerous on the offense" thing.
There are two major things that are skewing the usefulness of bombers, and neither of which are really due to the bomber unit itself.
First off, there is the disproportionally high number of units with heavy or ultra heavy armor
. Sadly, this one will not be easy to fix.
The second thing is that there is only one mechanic that can protect structures (except for harvesters and their exo-shield thing), forcefields. Guess what, all the forcefield units have a hull type that bombers have a bonus against!
This seems a bit easier to fix, or at least "band-aid".
Here is my idea:
-Give one of the standard forcefields (the regular or the hardened, I'm not sure which yet, though I am leaning towards armored) a new hull type that the bomber does NOT get a bonus to. (I'm thinking a hull type that the standard fighter gets a bonus against, as if you have it a hull type that missile frigates have a bonus against, you can make your forcefield stupidly durable when combining it with a counter-missile turret)
-Let the AI get their own version of the armored forcefield (which also gives the nice side affect of making humans care about armor more, and buffs the polarizer in human hands)
This should make players fear mixed waves a bit more, and give us humans more reason to use mixed fleets too.
Any thoughts? Does this need to go in its own thread?
EDIT1: A better "fix" would to be to introduce a new protecting mechanic that is not countered by bombers. (That exo-forcefield for command stations has been proposed before, that might work), but that would be a new unit, and thus would be more work.
EDIT2: It may also be helpful to give one of the bonuses of the bomber to some other triangle ship, though that would require some serious analysis of balance repercussions.