Calling A20Gs a bomber is a joke. They're used as fighters 99% of the time (INCLUDING in FSOs, where they dogfight with, and usually WIN against, axis fighters). Calling 110Gs fighters is also a joke, as with such heavy guns they are 99% used for ground attack, and avoiding the first initial HO are dead meat to any other fighter in the game.
On top of that, 190F8s make good ground attack (and they won't be tasked with escort duties, they won't be assigned 35k alt CAPs, they will be given targets that NEED to be hit). Also, say what you will about IL2s, but they soak up ungodly amounts of ammo, and with the 23mm ammo option (their only choice, per the rules) they can out turn and shoot down their attacks as much as the attackers can shoot them down. This I have also seen in countless FSOs. Hell I've done it myself! In Stalin's Fourth us IL2s were damned good at covering ourselves. I, as a mediocre IL2 pilot, was able to down several "superior" fighters as were many of my squadmates in the same frame.
You may be wearing blinders as to what planes can (or should) be called fighters, vs those called bombers. It's about as fair and even as you can get! Not historically accurate, no, but no scenario really is. The issue isn't "do we have 50,000 AH players to simulate the real war", it's "will folks feel like they're in the historic event?"
I like it when things stick to historical accuracy as well, but in this particular case, I think the gameplay issues taking precedent is perfectly fine. Same as when the FSO runs late war 8th AF sweeps with more fighters than bombers, instead of 10x as many bombers and 1/4th as many escorts. You have to tweak things because it is a game.
