Aerial wargames really are a niche market, aren't they?

I don’t read the media you’re talking about, but I feel like you have it right. War at Sea is the most popular Avalon Hill game but the opposite is true in the wider world of table top gaming. There are a lot of land games that have been successful, to the point that we are probably the only community that calls it the land game, but few sea and air games have been made at all and those have been relative flashes in the pan. Wings of Glory and AAAF happened and now they are over. War at Sea and the Mongoose game are the same way.

Land game is a retronym anyway, before War at Sea it was the only Axis & Allies Miniatures.

I think the bombers could have made the game last as many sets as War at Sea. Two bombers per set from different nations would be enticing. Instead, people bought six of every plane and do mods or adjust cards.

It’d have more dynamic play if there were more pilot skill levels for most of the aircraft. I would be curious to see how an average La-5 or D. 520 would do.

That sounds like a new forumini deck idea.

What, like six-on-six?

I was thinking something like maybe having multiple smaller planes (bombers?) on one stand like WAS, with several of these making up larger formations. Squadron bombing formations with maybe fighters units (less per stand)(singular?) protecting and attacking. Other factors could be bomb targets, ground AA, weather etc. Possibly cards involved somewhere.

I actually ended up doing this (costing planes and pilots separately). While I was at it, I redid all of the stat values so that there is an objective metric by which all aircraft are gauged. It took a ton of time, but I’ve been thrilled with the results. Would gladly share with anyone who would like.

I have played Blood Red Skies and I much prefer AAAF

I like the bigger models, the small formations and the streamlined rule mechanics, IMO- much simpler to achieve the same result