Huib is right. Dickens II may not have been the best choice for my example, but I think it serves. Jason, you played it with extreme assault on and the Allies ended up at minus 500 or so. I believe if you play it with the 1.02 old assault rule they don't lose that badly. Remember as first side they have the onus to take objectives, and your results show that with extreme assault and a bunker to bunker murder map, they can't do it.
Also recall that scenario starts the Allieds at 500 VP's and they can actually lose ground to 400 and still get a minor victory. The victory levels on that scenario are set up to take account of the nasty terrain around Monte Cassino. Since your bunker to bunker, the old tactic was to disrupt everyone in a hex, usually through concentrated artillery and crossed fingers, and then you assaulted to push them out of their bunker. You can't be saying it's easier to take those bunkers now that you not only need to disrupt everyone, you need to shoot them up and lower their morale significantly as well. Not going to happen, everyone's in a bunker or pillbox.
So...what I think I'm trying to say is....your test validated my point. That being, it's harder with extreme assault. I think it's a fact, and we both agree on that. Or, did I miss something?
Okay, been following this a bit and I have to ask did I miss something?
I'm assuming Jason played the Germans as the scenario is designed to be played. If so, despite EA, he cleared and retook almost every objective on the map including four that were bunker or pillbox? That doesn't seem to support the arguements against EA.
Seriously, am I missing something or did Jason play the Brits? Just wondeing :chin:
Archived Forums
Help
Calendar
Member List
Search
){kind=link}
