You still fail to see the fundamental problem that this scenario presents.

Actually, you can go back and look at all scenarios to see what ratios work, and you can run the scoring system on every frame of past scenarios to see how it would have turned out.

The goal is system where half the frames are won by one side and half by the other. This is complicated by the fact that sometimes one side has much better plans and execution than the other -- so you need enough data for a statistical analysis, not one scenario.

Bombers these days are scored to be sort of a neutral asset. Roughly speaking, they generate -3 points (i.e., +3 points to the enemy) if they are all shot down and +3 points if they all live, drop on target, and all make it back to base. If half of them get shot down, it is net zero points. If all of them drop on target but all get shot down in the process, it is net zero points. And so on.

Now, maybe you need it to be +2.5 points per successful drop instead of +3, or +3.5 instead of +3, etc. +3 was used as a rough ballpark of what you'd expect to work, but data can tell you. You can go back and run this scoring system on every frame of every scenario where one side had bombers and the other didn't, and see how it does.

Our current system of bomber scoring is vastly more balanced than the past ad hoc scoring systems people made up because it worked in their heads without crunching the data on past scenarios to model it.