3 things I'm tired of

[Kool Kat]

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.

Petri - you misinterpret what I stated. I was referencing multiple Japanese platoons, in a single hex, utilizing combined direct fire attacks with artillery barrages to counter attack the American forces... not a single Japanese platoon successfully counter attacking against superior American units. Also, as I stated earlier, this was strictly indirect fire followed up with combined direct fire attacks. No close assaults were involved in these localized Japanese counter attacks.

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

I think I'm safe to state that ALL CS players are thankful that Jason & Co listened to players' feedback and made EA an optional rule. I believe the original intent was to have EA "replace" the existing assault rules!

BTW... I've enjoyed this thread and want to thank participants for their civil and respectable posts!