I, too, find that giving suggestions marinated in a sea of insults works great with co-workers, associates, and people I interact with. It's such a great tactic that I run my businesses and personal life that way.
Anyway, here is the reason for the scoring. Everything is equal except for bombers, which are asymmetric. For that to work, you have to estimate likelihoods and what is typical, and make that your zero point in scoring, so that if you do typical, it's a wash. If you do better than typical, you gain points, and if you do worse than typical you lose points. You have to look at probabilities of things, not just endpoints.
Based on past scenarios, my estimate is that mediocre or middle-of-the-road performance (not great and not the worst) is about half the bombers making it to target and bombing, and then getting shot down on the way back out. That then gives a delta of zero points. If you do poorly, you lose all your bombers short of target, and the points delta is negative. If you do better than mediocre, you get more of them back home or more of them to target and the points delta is positive.
The delta for N formations in the middle-of-the-road case is -3N points from loss of bombers and +6*0.5*N points for hitting targets, for a delta of zero. Do worse than that and get negative delta; do better and get positive delta.
ROC's point is that if you look at the endpoints, you get -3N if you lose all bombers short of target, and you get +6N if you get all bombers to target and they all make it back. However, in setups like this, it is more likely that all bombers get shot down than all bombers make it to target and back. I think it's about half as likely to get all bombers to target and back than it is to loose all the bombers. If so, then you need points for all bombers to target and back to be worth twice the points of losing all bombers for the probability distribution to work out evenly.
It's like with roulette. You bet $10 on a number. If you lose, you lose your $10. If you win, you get $350. Does that mean its unfair to the house that they pay $350 if your number comes up but only get $10 if it doesn't? No, because the odds of your number coming up isn't 50/50.
So, we can talk about how bomber scoring should go, but we should skip the insulting tone -- no need for that -- and add in liklihoods, which is needed, not just endpoints, which is an incomplete analysis.
As for attackers not being able to attack bombers, that isn't the case. They just can't fly at 20k when they are carrying bombs or rockets. Why? (1) Because they weren't able to do that in the actual battles and still discover their ground targets and (2) because if we have some sort of overall alt cap and attackers can fly at it, they can just blow through fighter defenses (which also is totally unrealistic). Bombers can't fly higher than attackers with rockets and bombs, bombers might not always be at the alt cap (so attackers even with rockets and bombs could sometimes be higher), and attackers can fly at whatever alt they want if they aren't carrying rockets or bombs.
Doing everything you can to script a win.
That is completely false.
Brooke is about a biased as a sock.
That is true.
