The main use of airpower on a tactical scale in WW2 was to keep armor from moving, to not allow nearby units to reinforce the narrow (unless you're the Soviets) attack front. Interdiction was the first most important tactic, with reducing strongpoints a close second. The third thing was to reduce effectiveness AND morale. How this should be modeled on in a corps-level game is a much more difficult proposition. Sometimes airpower seems too effective, sometimes not effective enough in the game. The US bombed some of those Jap held islands massively to little effect. Except for massive allied carpet-bombing in the breakout of the beaches/hedgerows in Aug '44, massive level bombing did little to damage the enemy's will or defensive ability in WW2. However, tactical fighter-bombers were so deadly against armor that by mid-'43, Axis armored units mostly moved at night. Same with tactical use of medium bombers against subs. Land-based air was deadly against shipping (why the Germans tried to hide in Fjords). Strategic bombing works poorly in this game, doing little real PP damage for a major cost. In reality, bombing city's and factories, and railyards was a highly effective tactic on an enemy's National Morale and ability to produce enough, although the cost in men and material to do so was massive and it takes a long time to finally begin to affect production.
I generally agree with what you are saying here Baloo, but not entirely. The fact is that without the proper use of airpower the Germans would not have achieved the success they did in Poland, France and Russia. The Allies could not have won in Italy or France without airpower. Control of the skies was pretty key in all theaters at all times (except when weather grounded aircraft). I just don't find this importance duplicated in the game. It will be interesting to see in WarPlan Pacific how important air power is.