Well, I can see the position that pigswill favours, but I think the other's got merit too.
Bombers are vulnerable as per the 'scissors-paper-rock' theory that is Civ4 (e.g. Knights beat Crossbows - Crossbows beat Pikes - Pikes beat Knights) in that SAMs and Fighters do have good shots at Bomber interception, but Bombers can deliver big collateral damage to stacks in cities from a reasonably safe distance, and if the AI tries the 2-only stack attack, they get 'owned' by Bombers before they even get close. There's always some chance that Bombers will get injured and need healing rather than shot down. I'm aware that there was quite some criticism of the cost-benefit of Bombers under the Warlords expansion rules - so if everyone would prefer to avoid them and go with Gunships, Artillery, and Gunpowder units, then that's OK.
Personally, I'm no Nostradamus, but if we can get Flight, Radio, and Industrialism, I'd suspect that's all we'd need. Even then, that might be overkill in the view of some, but I think that those three tech's should do it.
Best of luck.
Bombers are vulnerable as per the 'scissors-paper-rock' theory that is Civ4 (e.g. Knights beat Crossbows - Crossbows beat Pikes - Pikes beat Knights) in that SAMs and Fighters do have good shots at Bomber interception, but Bombers can deliver big collateral damage to stacks in cities from a reasonably safe distance, and if the AI tries the 2-only stack attack, they get 'owned' by Bombers before they even get close. There's always some chance that Bombers will get injured and need healing rather than shot down. I'm aware that there was quite some criticism of the cost-benefit of Bombers under the Warlords expansion rules - so if everyone would prefer to avoid them and go with Gunships, Artillery, and Gunpowder units, then that's OK.
Personally, I'm no Nostradamus, but if we can get Flight, Radio, and Industrialism, I'd suspect that's all we'd need. Even then, that might be overkill in the view of some, but I think that those three tech's should do it.
Best of luck.