Lomsor, I think you’re missing some gameplay aspects which would make this situation far less dire than you suggest:
To begin with, you have to consider the scale of the game. Why is the attacker (in this case) at that point? It is probably because there is a critical facility there. Instead of being an arbitrary ‘Attacker’, the ‘Attacker’ here is likely a strategic defender, trying to guard a point target.
The first step for the ‘Attacker’ is to find the ‘Defender.’ Here is where Infinity’s scale comes into play. An ‘Attacker’ will have to patrol thousands(!!!) of square kilometers to cover all the approach routes to a target. If we restrict sensors to a forward arc (a requirement if long range missiles are in play) and decrease sensor reliability through decoys and low altitude masking, an ‘Attacker’ has to maintain a ceaseless patrol, constantly turning and scanning in different directions. Finding the opponent is a major task in this game and gameplay should reward people who find (or evade) their enemy.
Let’s turn this around and look at the ‘Defender’. The ‘Attacker’ is flying in circles broadcasting his position with a high-powered search radar. The ‘Defender’ has perfect knowledge of the ‘Attacker’ and can divide his forces to evade the ‘Attacker’. Or send escorts up to engage the ‘Attacker’ to draw away fire. The escorts can fire using passive homing, aiming at the emitting ‘Attacker’.
As for the rest of the engagement, the ‘Attacker’ has to spend a lot of time waiting for the ‘Defender’ and positioning himself to be in the right place. Then the engagement goes:
‘Attacker’ does:
- patrol looking for ‘Defender’ on radar, exposing himself to attack by emitting sensor noise
- detect ‘Defender’ on radar
- engage targeting radar for missile quality lock
‘Defender’ does:
- fire passively guided missile at the ‘Attacker’ radar
- engage jamming to reduce ‘Attacker’ radar range
‘Attacker’ does:
- break from approach to evade passively guided missile
- close range to power through jamming, or fire different (less reliable) class of missile
‘Defender’ does:
- fire off decoys to lure away missile
- split force to make ‘Attacker’ divide his attention
- maneuver
‘Attacker’ does:
- close to short range to ensure kill
What is missing is the interplay of different gameplay mechanics:
- sensor modeling
- ECM and ECCM modeling
- different guidance types: Radiation seeking; active radar homing; infrared homing
If Infinity goes with long range missiles, then the above needs to be modeled to give enough gameplay depth.
But, there is a much larger picture here which is missing in the missile discussion.
Say that the game only has short ranged combat. This will give a massive advantage to any bombers. The goal of a defense force is to engage bombers far away from the target, so that no single bomber can close to the target to deliver a payload. If defense fighters only have short ranged weapons, then the optimal strategy for the bombers is to approach the target from all directions of the compass. In that case, the defenders could only respond to one or two bombers at a distance, while the other ones close in from other directions.
Again, we have to recall that defenders are guarding over thousands of square kilometers, while attackers can come in at very high speeds for the final run into the target. Without long-range weapon mechanics, there are no reasons to fly at low altitudes, so attackers will run in at high altitude and high speed.
For historical analogies: US Strategic bombers were trending towards supersonic aircraft until the development of reliable long range air defenses. Then there was a very sharp shift towards low altitude flight. Compare B-1B to XB-72.
Long range missiles give the defenders some chance against a reasonable attacking force. The missiles will drive attackers to lower altitudes and slower speeds and defenders can attrite an attacking force.
To emphasize: without long range weapons, there is /no/ reason to fly at low altitude. High altitude and high speed is optimal if weapons are short ranged only.