Are fighters and bombers balanced with regard to each other?

[RogerBacon]

In some threads I've read people talk about changing the ratio of fighters to bombers their carriers carry. It's a manual process of deleting individual units and ordering up the production of a new fighter or bomber.
My question is do you think fighters and bombers are balanced with regard to each other? I don't think the developers envisioned people micromanaging their strike craft so much (even though they gave us the option).
What would you prefer? More fighters or more bombers? I think 1/3 fighters and 2/3rds bombers is what I would probably do. That's about what WW2 carriers held most of the time.

[RogerBacon]

Well, I think I've answered my own question. After splitting Fighters and bombers into separate components (FighterBay / BomberBay) I find that I use the bomber bays almost exclusively. Maybe I would use some fighter bays if I encountered an AI that was using more fighters but as it is now, I prefer bombers. I supposed that means I will have to balance the component cost or size or find some other way to balance them.

[Retreat1970]

Imo I think the difference between the two is minimal. I'm just going off a glance at the fighters.txt.

[Cepheiden]

The top tier fighters are mathematically 18% better than the bombers. However, bombers perform better because they have higher damage that has less chance to get completely absorbed by armor. Regrettably, the way armor mechanics work in this game is causing weapons below a certain base damage treshold to perform way worse than they should.
On a side note, bombers will also get the first hit out faster because they have higher range, though that is virtually irrelevant for fights against ships of similar strengths because the fighters will be in range just a tiny bit later and there they will stay longer than the bombers due to their speed and evasion.