3 things I'm tired of

[Askari19]

I now know how to exploit the rule, but it still strikes me as gamey and unrealistic and I'm embarassed to use it, kind of like overrunning HQs with empty halftracks

My experience since then has shown a lot more unreasonable outcomes - is that better than "silly"? - from the original assault rules than from EA. HSL, I get that your sample set and your view of what's reasonable differs. Don't mean nothin'. I don't need to be right, and you can't prove me "wrong" nor vice versa. Nothing to bicker about.

I hope we are not coming off as bickering. We just disagree based on our individual experiences.
Mine first was a lone German machine gun platoon that the game engine die rolls made into a superman machine gun platoon.
Yes, the Mg was in a town and in an IP. But, it was attacked over and over for about eight turns by an entire battalion of British infantry supported by artillery & engineers. Each turn it would be disrupted and disrupted and disrupted and disrupted and then assaulted multiple times from multiple hexes. Each turn the 15% die roll would save it and it would regain it's morale. By the ninth turn I had finally reduced it's strength enough for it to go away.
I honestly find that more unrealistic than a company of Panthers wiping out a company of T-34's.

And, although I do not know the exact situation (of your half track example) I do not see anything wrong with a platoon or two of armed half tracks overrunning a HQ. But, that is just me.
I think that HT's also are good to go overrunning AT guns too. Another of my experiences involved disrupted AT guns that could not succumb to being overrun by armor and bren carriers.



HSL

Yep, I know what you're talking about with the apparently invincible EA-on defenders... I (fortunately) haven't run into that too often, if I had, it might change my tune.

Halftracks! that probably wasn't the best example to use. As we discussed a while back, I'm mostly OK with armed halftracks doing whatever they want - although if they're personnel carriers, I tend to keep them tethered to their passenger units to some extent. That's so hard to define that I wouldn't try to write it into an ROE or ask it of anyone else, but it's the difference between, say, covering a flank, providing fire support, or assaulting enemy positions that the dismounts are engaged with - versus leaving their dismounts and raiding independently like cavalry into the rear areas for targets of opportunity. If someone wants to do the latter, I'll accept it and hope to make them regret it! Anyway, what I was trying to say is that there are things that we can do within the rules and even within a good set of house rules/ROE that pass the 'legal' test but that I'm uncomfortable with from a "realistic tactics and doctrine" standpoint, and original CS assaults are often in that category.... for me.