Is assaulting Bunkers too hard ?

[Xaver]

Well, real life is not a rock paper scissors game... usually few lose VS more BUT not allways.

In a game like this give room to see "unespected" situations is ok IF they are not the average situation... i refer that few men can hold a bigger enemy BUT to be fair you can see examples of exactly oposite... for example see Eben Emael case, not allways a heavy defensive position is strong, could be a rat trap even with enough soldiers.

For me in game one thing in bunker war (and extensive to urban warfare) could be made arty more capable of be a fatigue dealer... see arty allways dealing fatigue, more in light defenses and less in heavy defenses but allways increasing target fatigue... with this to mortars and even direct fire infantry/antitank guns could be more usefull to in combat.

Maybe one negative point in game here is the lack of "facing", not only in armor, in defenses to because usually bunker positions are less capable to defend VS attacks from not expected areas and well, not allways bunkers are the best "active" defense because many times are simple areas to hide from enemy arty... pillboxes are other history.

I am curious if is possible made bunkers/pillboxes less effective VS direct assaults from diferent areas something like a increased chance to force defenders evacuate position when attack come from 3 or more areas, in the end more than destroy defenders attacker only wants open an attack route...

PD: i know in game there is facing but only is used in certain gun units to simulate the naval arty emplacements.