I'm of the mind that things like this tend to fluctuate over time and even things out. Lately, however, I've been having a change of heart about it for reasons other than have been mentioned here.
Last night after almost 200 Knights and 140 Bishops reset 80 Rooks on the Pacific map, we moved to the Baltic... where promptly 50 Bishops attacked seven (yes, seven) Rooks who decided to stick around after the reset and 70 or so Knights attacked undefended Bishops bases in the east.
What's happened to the incentive to find the fight? 50 against 70 sounds like a fun matchup, and yet these two sides were avoiding one another and going for the easy land grabs with overwhelming and insurmountable odds. Somehow that seems anathema to what an air combat simulator is all about, but maybe that's just me.
I can only guess that the emphasis on winning the war and earning perk points for it causes this kind of behavior. The funny thing is that in an hour of furballing and mixing it up, it's possible to get far more perk points from combat alone than from resetting the map. And yet the need to take bases (and I'm not against grabbing bases, mind you) perpetuates a low-risk, low-resistence sort of strategy. The real key to winning is to take as many undefended or lightly defended bases as possible and avoid quagmire 50 vs. 70 situations that stall base capture. In other words, the strategy for successfully resetting the map in AH is not necessarily the same strategy for ensuring plentiful and balanced air combat. So long as "winning" remains the focus without side-balancing mechanisms in place, one side will always be the red-headed stepchild.
Just some thoughts.
-- Todd/Leviathn