Sky Menace - A deeper look on the gameplay

[PLEASE, READ THE FULL THREAD BEFORE VOTING]

In a few recent discussions I had with SM players after some in-game experiences, I've noticed what seems, to me and to them, as a balancement problem related with the Sky Menace strategy. In my opinion, it has turned from the hardest to one of the easiest strategies to play.

Economic management - Nowadays, SM players have little to no problem handling their economy mid and late game, mainly because their very fast expansion, losing only to Blitzkrieg, a strategy that has a way worst side effect while defending conquered cities. This applies to small and big maps, being easily noticed in europe and whole world games by other players.

Military management - While using SM, players are actually playing in a "blank" map with no obstacles (water to most strategies, land to MoS, GW and NC), being the only strategy that can take fully advantage of it. SM bombers have also a big advantage against other offensive AND defensive units when it comes to movement range, making it easier to reinforce or regroup stacks anywhere on the map.

Offensive tactics - Despite being buffed, Air Transports and mainly Stealths are rarely used in the way they were meant to be when the strategy was originally created. In my opinion, the main reason to this situation is the fact that, compared to the continuously "bomber stacking" tactic, the use of the expensive stealths doesn't appear as a good strategic alternative that could add some versatility to the strategy. Meanwhile, the Air Transports are used to one single purpose: joining the bomber stacks to capture cities. I'm not saying this is wrong, just that it could (and should) have more uses.

Defensive tactics - Militias and Infantries have no defensive penalties while playing SM, and I suggest it to remain the same. The main problem, to me, is that even when having fine defensive units, the SM players choose to defend their cities by stacking bombers on it, which is supposed to be an offensive unit, but nowadays it's a viable option. A good comparative example is that you won't see MoS or GW players defending their cities with Marines or TG and GC with tanks. The other strategies that can use their main units for defensive and offensive purposes are PD, for obvious reasons, and NC, that can only use it's destroyers on coastal cities.

Taking those factors into account, I suggest these specific changes to SM units (based on default stats):

Bomber
8atk/6def ($130)
9atk/5def ($150)

In my opinion, bombers should be used as offensive units only, making it's defensive use an expensive option. I'm also talking about the fact that, at the moment, it's very easy to capture and hold a country with the same units you used to capture it in the first place, with no negative effects at all. Also, I suggest a raise on it's cost, since it's "spamming" capacity is already solid comproved by most players.

Stealth
9atk/5def ($250)
9atk/4def ($230)

At the moment, the discount Stealths have on it's price doesn't make it attractive enough for SM players to buy them. By reducing it a little more, together with the raise on the Bombers cost, I believe that it can become a more used unit, adding versatility to the gameplay while using SM.

Sentry Plane
1atk/4def ($400) (60 view)
1atk/4def ($390) (70 view)

Now, Sentry Planes have no buff on SM and that, in my opinion, should change, since it's also an "air" unit type. I also notice that it's use is very restrict, and buff to it's stats could make it more attractice for defensive purposes mainly.

Air Transport
2atk/4def ($400) (3 capacity)
2atk/4def ($400) (4 capacity)

In my opinion, Air Transports are supposed to work as a fast option to manage units in the battlefield, which doesn't happen with SM in the present moment, by raising it's capacity by 1 (a huge difference in long terms) and with the reduced defense of bombers, it could work as a defensive tool for bringing infantries/militias from other locations to more strategical spots that need to be defended.

Well, that's it for now, I hope you can help me with critics and suggestions about it. I sincerely think that these changes can add the so needed complexity that SM lacks in our actual situation. My intention is not to nerf the strategy, but make it more complex than a single unit spamming.