[quote=@Willy Vereb]
<Snipped quote by Mihndar>I wouldn't mind if we would keep this at 1940ish levels but I can adopt if we do it differently.
I already adjusted my "main" interceptor's speed to mid-late WW2 prop levels (or somewhat above, just look at the engine to weight ratio) and added various hardpoint options which very a pretty typical thing by this time.

As for air motherships, there's nothing too off about them.
Mothership concept in itself is known since WW1. And we have a "super gas" lighter than hydrogen and noncombustible so there's even more reason to invest in airships. They seem to be pretty much the "thing" of this setting. I can barely count the nations who don't own them and the number of nations who arm them up like battleships is similarly large.
Voltus_Ventus for example has airships with armament similar to the Iowa battleship, although hopefully not as armored.
[/quote]

The thing about this though is that amusingly everyone is forgetting the reason why people don't use airships for war (unless that is intentional):

You fire a cannon or a rocket at it, it pops, and your entire massive machine that you spent a billion dollars on falls out of the sky because there's no effective way to repair the breach and you can't put enough armor on it without weighing it down too much to move. You make the balloon bigger, you have to add more armor and you don't escape the same problem.

Airships should not be heavily armed for the simple reason that the more stuff you put on it, the more you lose when it gets destroyed. And how on earth could an airship support both an airstrip long enough to take off of and *checks character tab* 300 planes? Just seems a tad too unrealistic to me.