@DrLarsen:
…but if the “heavy” is a two-engine, I’m concerned that it will be too hard to quickly distinguish the tac bomber, especially from a distance on a gameboard…
I don’t think that limiting models by engine count is worth the trouble. Japan never successfully fielded a 4 engine bomber and Germany’s most successful 4 engine bomber had only two nacelles/props, effectively appearing as a “2 engine” plane for model purposes. Axis “strategic bombers” were by design and nature tactical themselves. The Allies were the only power to develop dedicated high altitude strategic bombers. And besides, “Strategic Bombers” and “Tactical Bombers” are a bit of a misnomer in this game as if you’re attacking ground units with a strategic bomber unit, it’s performing in a tactical bombing role.
I see the Val, Dauntless, IL-2 Sturmovik, and Stuka as representing the ground attack/naval attack roles of the heavy fighters/dive bombers/torpedo bombers. I say this because I think that “tactical bombers” is the vaguest, broadest term based on the OOB aircraft. The Mosquito even blurs the line more as while it was a tactical bomber, it excelled it many other roles (recon, night fighting, fighter bomber, etc) while the Val, Dauntless, etc weren’t nearly as flexible.
Should FMG mold the ME110 as a tac bomber (and I think they should, as it was an iconic heavy fighter and ground attack craft), it looks very little like the Ju88. And if they repeat the Stuka, that’s far more appropriate to the role than the Ju88.
Not to mention this is exactly why there should be a scale difference between bombers, tacs, and fighters similar to OOB units. Scale realism sometimes needs to take a backseat to unit clarity.