Is assaulting Bunkers too hard ?

[wiggum]

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.

I think no one is "damning the game" Strela.
I love it and im sure the others who make suggestions love it too.
The whole point of spending time here with making suggestions (and modding) is to help getting something thats already very good to become great.

Panzer Battles like all JT games has a high level of abstraction. So there is always another game running...in the imagination of the players. And for me a 18 men unit in a bunker that gets reduced to 5 without even getting DISRUPTED, gets surrounded, assaulted by 180 combat engineers and fights off the assault 20 times in a row (testing,reloading) taking additional casualties without becoming disrupted/broken...does not feel right.
As i said before, maybe i just dont understand how the abstraction exactly works so i hope for the final PzB Normandy Manual.

Now the whole discussion has shown that many agree that maybe DISRUPTION and BROKEN results should be a bit more likely...
Lets quote Ricky B:

Anyway, appreciate the discussion, my only thought, and it is really more based on play since the release, is that the higher morale formations do seem to avoid disruption too long - the lower morale units don't though, I know from playing the Germans in Cherbourg! I never really saw that in testing, but maybe because most of what I tested was the US/Allied in the scenarios I worked on, and there seemed to be plenty of disruptions.

My guess as to the lack of broken units is that, to break, it must reach max fatigue. I think most units are destroyed before max fatigue is reached, so maybe it is as simple a change as to double fatigue or something, to bring in more disruptions and broken units - I see lots of yellow fatigue units but rarely a red, so rarely a chance of reaching the point of breaking. This may need tweaked, but I don't know what drives that, I think it is internal to the engine rather than a parameter.

Rick

It would be great if the dev team would look into that, im just a player with a opinion.
I just have the overall feeling that units in PzB are in majority basically "fighting to death". Slightly more disruption and broken results for both, attackers and defenders would, in my opinion give the game a more realistic feeling.
Especially the BROKEN status seems perfect in some situations (unit reduced from 40 men to 8, takes another casualty) but they seem to happen in a very obscure way, like in a very bad luck dice roll and rarely in situations in which you would expect them to happen.

Maybe you could provide a version of the game with "double fatigue" and send it out to players who are willing to test it ?