Question on Alternative Assault Resolution

[TJD]

You should absolutely continue to fire artillery at bunkers and hard targets due to the following rule. I have seen units disrupt in bunkers with a no effect!!

Special Disruption Rules
As a result of being fired upon, the target unit may have to take a morale check
to determine its Disruption and Broken status as described in the section on
Combat Results. There are some modifiers to this effect:
• When an indirect fire unit fires on a Hard Target, either hard vehicles or
units deployed in a hard fortification, then the disruption effect is twice
that of normal. For hard vehicles, this is the effect of causing them to
"button up" and thus have reduced effectiveness. For hard fortifications,
this is a result of the "pounding" that results on the fortifications and the
disruptive effect this has on the occupants.

Thanks, Strela! That's truly helpful. So I guess "No Effect" doesn't always mean "No Effect" after all. Hmm.

I'm pretty good about reading manuals but I have to say that paragraph went right by me.

I've learned a lot in this thread. Thanks, everyone.

Obviously I'm in Ricky B's camp and will stick to the original assault rules whenever possible. While it may be mathematically possible, as Foul and others believe, to succeed with the alternative rule, the added cost in time, manpower, and tedium seems really excessive, and to no great benefit that I can see in terms of the quality of gameplay.

I'm speaking only in the context of bunkers. I get the armor aspect of the alternative rule. Can't the alt rule be modified to differentiate between bunkers and armor? Shouldn't it? Or is that the sort of foolish suggestion only a novice player like me would make?

Thanks!

Tim