3 things I'm tired of

[Crossroads]

Actually, the defender (Japanese, in my The Battle of Manila scenario) have excellent chances for successful counter attacks with EA = ON... provided the units do NOT utilize close assault, but instead rely on combined direct fire attacks and artillery barrages against the American platoons.

This is interesting, I need to play that scenario! See, what you just described was the means a single Jap platoon could succesfully drive back a strong US force-mix, given the artillery and perhaps some accompanying direct fire would disrupt all US troops in a hex. Then you would just commit a single Jap platoon with an assault value to drive them backwards.

Again, I am not disagreeing with your experience. All I am saying is that I would need to play the scenario to be able to discuss it.

Agree 50% I don't find EA = ON to be "fun" - maybe necessary for balance purposes... but, that's my opinion and the nicety of having it as an optional rule. Again that's why I made the statement about EA being a "situational" optional rule.

That's quite OK. That's the beauty of optional rules. Don't like them? Then don't play with them

I think you may be dancing around some terminology nuances? You mention "certain preconditions" that need to exist in a scenario (e.g. time / length and "map"). These preconditions must be designed into a scenario for it to be more acceptable to the use of EA. That's what I mean by a developer designing a scenario with EA in mind.

My intent was the opposite to terminology nuances. I do not agree that - when speaking on a generic level - a statement such as "A scenario needs to be designed with EA in mind" is true. Lots of old stock scenarios play well with EA. Lots of them don't. And EA does not necessarily require longer scenarios either. imho.

I respectively have to disagree with your statements. Again, I think it is a situational condition. Ed and I played the WF "Unexpected" scenario with EA = ON. A lone Axis MG platoon (entrenched in a town hex) successfully beat off battalion-sized British forces that close assaulted it numerous times in a turn... combined with huge numbers of artillery barrages... for well over three quarters of the game. The Axis MG was also disrupted numerous times during the game. In this example, the use of EA ruined the game... primarily because the scenario was developed "pre-EA."

So, game turns / length, map and terrain, fortifications, and available forces, ALL impact and affect how EA will influence a specific scenario. The use of EA ALWAYS dramatically and fundamentally alters the play mechanics and game flow of any scenario in which it is utilized.

First of all, I agree that a game with EA=ON is fundamentally different from a game with EA=OFF. On that we agree. They very much require a different game plan.

I recall the MG example as well from some previous EA discussion here. I have never seen anything just like that, but I do not doubt it happened.

I do recall having spend some frustrating moments at bocage, trying to force a single ATG unit out of way with my leading units. I also recall seeing well developed pill boxes falling to a quick extreme assault. It goes both ways.

I remember doing an EA test with "Legend is Born" AAR. It showed some dramatic results with EA. See post #6 https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards...?tid=57814

The EA test was further discussed here, see post #19 for my test: https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards...d338663%29