Interesting breakdown of the state of Light Tank and Aeroplane development.
Currently the specialists are debating if Romania will be better off with developing an Interceptor model or a Multirole airplane. (What do you think?)
This is an interesting one:
Interceptors are the best at fighting other aeroplanes, they're very specialised. They have a relatively short range and use a lot of fuel and supplies (comparatively), but they're very fast. They're not particularly well protected, but they pack a lot of Air to Air firepower (Air Attack), they will shred anything that comes their way that's not an interceptor. (if not hopelessly obsolete) They're absolutely rubbish at shooting at anything that's not in the sky. (soft and hard attack are rubbish)
Multi-Role aeroplanes are a bit of a compromise. They have a pretty long range (close to that of Tactical bombers of a similar vintage), and they're more economical to run, they're also slower, and less effective against enemy aircraft than interceptors. They're more durable than interceptors, pack a little less Air to Air firepower, they will still shred anything that's not an interceptor or a Multi-Role Fighter. (if not hopelessly obsolete) They can actually do some damage on the ground, less than dedicated bombers, but significantly more than interceptors.
If you're building a large air force, you want both: The interceptors to shoot down any and all enemy planes coming your way, and the MR-Fighters to escort bombers and for use over longer distances. In the pacific, for example, Multi-Roles are ideal for island defence, because they can absolutely shred enemy CAGs while having a good range, and being less expensive to run than interceptors. The thing is, getting Multi-roles is 'only' one extra tech, once you've researched it, any Small Aeroplane research you do will apply to both Int and Ftr, so it might be a good long term plan to build some of both, tactical flexibility etc.
Another thing, both for aeroplanes and for light tanks, it might be worth it to think about what you really need from your tanks planes. For example, if you have a relatively good Air Base network, skipping Small Fuel Tank upgrades will make your planes sturdier and faster at the cost of range. For light tanks, skipping L Arm Armour will make your L Arm faster (but even worse on the defensive). These are ways you can get a small edge on the enemy vehicles (which are usually homogeneously researched). If you're manually directing your units, you can usually exploit these small advantages, while avoiding the correlated weaknesses. These differences compound over time, as with each research round, you add to the difference. You can also do other things, like designing your tanks to be exactly as fast as Engineers. (which have a fixed speed). Of course, in the case of L Arm, you might want to get to SP Art, so this might not be viable. On the other hand, if you really want a very fast moving L Arm Divisions, AC and SP R Art are faster when all is said and done, and AC is actually more accessible. Don't pair the light tanks with Engineers though, because you will loose any edge in speed you have due to the fixed 8 kph speed of Eng. If you can get the right licenses, "L Arm, Mec, AC, SP R Art" is probably the fastest combined arms formation in the game.
As for the Antitank weapons, they are not a pressing issue as long as Romania doesn't have to fight a Major Power. It looks like that their use is very limited against armies lacking armour, should that situation arise.
Yes Artillery is a priority over Anti-Tank weapons, you definitely won't have to face any tanks that soon. Might I suggest an alternative path, which could be more interesting than investing in dedicated AT brigades: If you want to have a bomber force on the cheap, you can go for CAS, again it's one extra tech, and then there is the recurring Light bomb tech. (or you can just buy licences). Building CAS instead of Tac allows you to maximise small aircraft practical, as you share practical and most upgrades across Int, Ftr, and CAS. If you want naval bombers, you can always license-build CAG and base them on land.
CAS aren't very good against soft targets (slightly better than Ftr, but miles behind Tac), but against hard targets they're brilliant. CAS instead of spread out AT also means that your flying tank-killers can be rapidly deployed exactly where the enemy tanks are. A possible issue is the short range of CAS, so you might have to build more Airfields.
Another is that they're particularly vulnerable to enemy fighters. You can counter that by pairing several CAS wings with a Ftr wing, making the entire formation a lot more durable in the face of enemy intercepts.
So you're going for the Allies then, that will be interesting to see. Romania, on it's own, facing off against two sparring giants right next door... Looking at other AARs, there is a good chance you'll get lend-lease from the Allies, maybe even some tech sharing (though I wouldn't hold my breath too much on that), and any licenses you may need (the US will have pretty much anything you want on offer, save for H Arm probably. And the British should have a well-filled catalogue too.)
