Is assaulting Bunkers too hard ?

[Strela]

Unlike what Strela suggests, I would always Isolate defenders whenever possible. Just make sure to give the defenders a valid retreat hex (not in your ZOC) if they're all disrupted to force them out of their bunker. The drop in quality from isolation makes it easier to remove them due to increasing the chance that they'll disrupt.

Unless there is a special rule that makes isolated defenders less likely to disrupt, Strela is also incorrect that isolated units are more likely to hold out, as like I mentioned above they lose a quality level when isolated which makes them more likely to disrupt.

Assaulting is a harder than in PzC due to there being fewer penalties that are imposed on the defender, such as there being no Low Ammo state. Bunkers with their own supply hex are difficult to clear.

Hi,

For clarity, my comments regarding isolation are related to leaving a retreat path. If you can push far enough beyond the bunker line and leave a retreat path and also isolate the defenders, then go for it. This is rarely the case with players more likely to put a unit either side of a bunker, isolating it but not leaving a retreat path. I thought that was self evident, but obviously it was not.

My comments related to isolated units being more likely to hold out is again directly related to NO retreat path. Units will hold in place and lose 50% of their strength if obligated to retreat and are not able to.

My recommendation to players who are trying to take the FIRST bunker out in the defenses is to not try and 'close' isolate it but to rather focus as much direct fire on it with the aim of a clean disrupt and then assault followed by a retreat into a valid hex. Hard attacks (direct & indirect) have a higher chance of disruption on units in bunkers & pillboxes and that's what you should be striving for as a first effort.

The low ammo/low fuel impact not being in play was deliberate as it was argued (as was the case with Kursk) that most bunkers had sufficient food/ammo for at least a day. Taking a two step drop in morale for isolation immediately was tipping the balance too much in testing on Kursk and we continued the same rationale into Normandy.

David

PS I hope some of you are playing the scenarios beyond D-Day because it appears you are damning the game based on one aspect - bunkers, that are in play for the first day scenarios. That would be a huge disappointment for me and would to be honest, require a fresh look at what breadth we would provide in any future games. Having seen posters in other forums damn Kursk based upon perceptions they had picked up from this forum, I'm disappointed to see the same sentiments and posts here that Normandy has flaws in its overall execution. Myself & the team have played the game a lot and believe that some of the current fixations are misguided and you're missing the focus of the game. I'm starting to believe that we have built a simulation that is too complex for most and the subtle interplay of units types, fire strengths, terrain and opportunity fire is too much for the average gamer. If that's the case, I'll pull back two steps and make a decision on the validity of any future projects. Please view this not as a knock on any commentary, it's welcome, but for me there is a strong trend apparent that is indicating we have failed to build something that is logical to players.