Is assaulting Bunkers too hard ?

[Gregor]

Its not about "too hard", its more about strange and unrealistic results that seem to happen a bit too frequent.
Look at my example on the first page.
Its more about very small units that take casualties during a assault and still not become disrupted or "finished off" (although already down from 18 men to just 3 and now took a additional casualty). Its about the "feeling" that small units can hold out in a unrealistic way against overwhelming attackers on a regular basis (i tested it 20 times always the same result).

Too hard was mostly referring to the title of the thread...

To me your initial result is a bit surprising, wouldn't expect you to fail 100% of the time, as I have taken out better defended positions more than once in assaults even if I prefer to disrupt them first, but with operational guns and firing defenders I have no problem with them holding out for an hour. That isn't that strange. D quality troops wouldn't just storm a defensive bunker complex firing back at them probably from many places. Human beings are known to have quite a lust to save themselves and storming some guns and active defenders are not what low quality troops are most motivated to do. The officers will need to find the best approach and get the best men in position. That will take time, planning and effort and will easily take more than half an hour.

I do think its just that we don't have the same view about how much the game should abstract the fight. I am of the impression you want closer to total control of the men and the terrain, and I am content with that the battle is more abstracted and is closer to a "board" game. I am more operational than tactical in my planning and thinking, and that's probably why I love these games despite the lower scale than PzC. The historical accuracy is also adding a lot to the enjoyment for me.

 Its quiet realistic that a attacker has a edge over a static defender.
He decides where and when to attack and holds the initiative.
Thats why the defense of the germans in WW2 relied heavily on fast counterattacks with mobile reserves.
Now you could argue that the AI is not capable of such a thing but a human player should.

Yes and that's exactly what I do feel this game is so good at simulating. The static defenses falls to the proper tactic in the proper timeframe and the defender have the ability to use prober counter tactics to prevent or slow the advance depending on their available forces. I do feel that last aspect is even better represented in Normandy than in Kursk as the force mix is better and both sides have high quality forces and a mixture of assets that makes it more challenging both for the attacker and defender as there are more options available for both sides.