Is assaulting Bunkers too hard ?

[Strela]

Clearly you can do it that way.

But the question remains, should defenders below 10 men always be able to fight off a assault by 180 men ?
Is there something wrong with the broken status ? Should defenders that were already broken and took additional casualties during a assault become broken ?
Is it a good idea to give bunker hexes their own suppply source which prevents them from becoming isolated ?
Is the "Finishing Off" rule working correct and should it maybe get expanded a bit ?

You are asking a lot of 'mechanics' questions here while ignoring some of the points Gregor is making.

Gregor was one of the play testers and has laid out one of the fundamental things we looked at - speed of advance. Make bunkers etc too tough and the attackers will get nowhere, weaken them and they fall like flies. It has been a fine line balancing it all and in the main we believe it works.

In answer to your questions, I have seen many occurrences of assaults sweeping away sub 10 defenders - I have not seen occurrences where the finishing off rule is not working as I would expect. That said, you are best to leave a retreat route for defenders in bunkers. Do NOT isolate them if you want to push the defenders out quickly. There is much more chance of forcing a retreat than destroying enemy units in situ. Isolating a bunker forces the defenders to stand and die and you're now at the vagaries of cleaning them out - better to get them in the open and shell them to death.

Broken does seem to be a rarity, but in testing I've seen it happen pretty regularly when units have been pushed to the edge.

Supply sources in bunkers is a very deliberate artifice. These bunkers were usually either extensive with significant local stockpiles of ammo and food or known to hold out for a significant period of time after the landings.

The bunker debate raged when Kursk came out. It's worthwhile looking at Dog Soldiers replays here or revisiting the threads from Kursk re attacking bunkers.


David