Batz, the connotations behind this logic of perking a certain set of planes, has multiple reasons than just performance issues, which seems to be what you're implying.
Yes, the performance issue is one basis, but its not because the section of suggested planes are necessarily unbalancing performance-wise.
Rather, the main purpose and logic lies in shaping the overall arena into a certain presupposed timeline where all individuals can try all planes without having to be exceptionally skilled, as well as returning some of the historic roles to the hangar queens, and achieving a more dynamic gameplay during the process.
The underlying time-line/premise is one of late 1943. In comparison, the current MA can be viewed as late 1944 or early 1945.
One specific objective I have envisioned, is to diverge the "fighter role" from the "bomber role".
The blandness of plane choices and tactics in MA gameplay is in essence, not something about "furballs" and "strats" - but rather something about which section of planes are made effective by the arena conditions, and which are rendered obsolete. As it is, the current late '44~early '45 condition renders most of the midwar planes utterly useless, in the fact that most of AH bombers and specialized attack planes are outclassed in the very own category which it should excell in - namely, the jabo role.
There is absolutely no reason to take a Bf110G-2 or a Mosquito and use it, because the survivability of these planes, as well as their effectiveness in payload is vastly inferior to the planes such as the Chog, P-51D, P-38L and etc etc. The effectiveness of these planes are so limited in that the drive behind choosing these planes in an attack role relies on some odd individual's taste or craving to make an eccentric mission or so.
IMO the jabo role, is another very important aspect of WW2 combat, as much as the GV aspect and A2A combat. The situations and conditions which the players have to realize, when the jabo role is given back to those planes, promises some very interesting situations previously unseen in the MA. For instance, a band of P-51s or P-38s can carry enough ordnance to flatten a field all by themselves. Characteristically speaking, the "2k-loaders", so to say.
However, when these section of fighters are limited, albeit slightly by perks, people are influenced to choose the unperked section of planes ranging from 1942 to 1943. They rarely carry more than 1000lbs(or in the form of 2x 500lbs) as primary payload, maybe a few extra small bombs and rockets added.
Not only is that kind of ordnance more typical of real-life WW2 conditions, but it is also more beneficial for the gameplay of AH, in the fact that a specialized jabo plane can carry more ordnance than the typical midwar plane. Also, the smaller overall payload means reduced effectiveness in destructive power a certain number of fighter planes hold.
Effectively, when 4~5 latewar planes can flatten all the FHs in a small field, it would take double the number of fighters if the gamers are inclined to choose a midwar plane. Adding to the fact, that the smaller/fewer bombs means they need to practice more precision in bombing techniques.
In other words, with the suggested regime, the gamers have a significant choice in variety concerning gameplay, regarding offensive missions, as to whether they would take 1) mid-war fighter planes armed with smaller payload, which needs more pilot numbers, cooperation, and precision... or if they should take the 2)specialized jabo planes, which lacks in survivability, but carries a much more impressive payload(by 1943 standards, not the 1945 standards of something like the P-47D-40).
How should an attacking force divide their forces? What is adequate ratio of fighters and ground attackers when a certain number of pilots start attacking a base? How visible would the inefficiency be, when people choose to up nothing but fighters to attack and suppress a field to increase territory? Will the gamers come to realize a constant number of jabos are needed to bring maximum efficiency in attacking an enemy field, rather than rely on mid-war planes with puny payload?
Those are all tactical possibilities and questions, which under the current MA conditions, is a non-issue, because there is no point in taking an inferior plane to do the task.
The situation implied by introduction of perks to the late war 'section' of planes, applies the same to the defensive side. Mid-war fighters are noticeably slower. It is easier to intercept a bomb-carrying Spit9 with another Spit9, than to intercept of bomb-carrying P-51D with another P-51D. For a long time, people have been frustrated by the 'lameness' of people taking the fastest planes which also carry the most ordnance, and then simply flying max speed into an enemy field, blowing past defenses or interception attempts.
So as the defending side, there are more tactical choices and situations, if the conditions are varied(by limiting the late-war planes). What's the best way to intercept an attack? Will the enemies come in with a fighter force? Or do they have a separate jabo force coming in? Should we try to ignore fighters and get to the jabos and shoot them down first?
....
In reality, the bare essentials of gameplay is not changed. However, the specific method of how the gameplay manifests itself can be changed - different variety of planes, different tactical conditions, different choices. And that is a worthy goal in my opinion. Worthy enough to perk the late war fighters. At the very best, optimistic scenario imaginable, it might be able to motivate people enough to organize themselves better and try out many different varieties of planes effective for the task(which, is made possible since the single class of late war fighters, are limited(not necessarily 'removed') a bit).
This is only but a single reason of the many reasons I am implying such a perk system be set. Another reason, in pure performance perspective, is the overall survivability of mid-war planes going higher, will promote more variety. 8 points made a plane with 23% usage come down to 2%. How much will 3 points bring down those planes with 10% usage? If the usage is reduced to 3~5%, then I view that as a great success.
If the 3 point perks can knock off about 50% of usage in the "Big Four(Big Five, according to my analysis, actually), it means 20% of the total gaming population will be using something other than those late war fighters(up to now, 40% of the total gaming population were using only four planes) - presumed to be the 'next best' mid-war fighters. Effectively, that itself is a balanced variety - we have SOME late war planes, flying with SOME mid-war planes together, at the same time.
The reduction in super fast fighters, means a considerable amount of planes flying around will be mid-war planes. Once this is accomplished, planes like the P-47, Fw190F-8, Mosquito, Bf110G all have a much better chance in survival, which may be motivation for people to start using different planes for different tasks. The Mosquito for example, can run for a long time before its caught, when the opponent is a mere Fw190A-5 or a Bf109G-2, as long as it initially has some speed. It actually becomes within top 10 of the fastest planes on deck, if the late-war section is perked.
....
AH2, by implementing more believable, likely, and realistic conditions in ground warfare, has boosted the importance of ground forces. In some terrains with lot of woods, the forest cover cuts the efficiency of attacks against impending GV columns to such a degree, that an equal force of defending GVs are needed, and to be used, to drive out the attackers.
However, most of the times in a bare terrain, GVs are still more or less dead-meat. Even if you miss a bit, when you have a 2k load of ordnance and 10 x 250lbs worth of rockets, you're gonna at least damage something even if you are shot down.
But imagine if the perks are applied. GV busting, for many average pilots like me, is generally a very dangerous job. Am I willing to risk constant bleeding of 3 points by taking up P-38Ls and such? Die five times in a P-38L and that is already 15 points wasted. No, I would definately take either an alternate fighter-bomber(preferably the P-47D-25), or a specialized attack plane like the A-20 Havoc or the Il-2 to face GVs.
Overall, the survivability of GVs also increase, as the impact of late-war fighters are reduced. A large ground force, even without sufficient aircover, is a very troubling enemy action to deal with if you don't have sufficient defense lines of GVs formed. At least, that's how it should be, which isn't, because if someone is crazy enough to head-first into a Tiger with bombs and rockets blazing, he will destroy it. It doesn't take precision, nor practice. All it takes is enough respawns, to stop GVs. At least, with the heavy ordnance carriers, that is.
.....
There are many more reasons such as above, to promote the perking of late-war planes. I do not wish to entirely remove them from the game. I only wish to reduce their MA impact, and let the reduced amount of impact be spread apart between those planes that previously had no purpose of existence, in the old MA.
In the worst case scenario, the gameplay will be entirely the same. What's there to lose?
