I've noticed with the 4.06 changes to units that can fire out of a hex, and in particular defenders being limited to firing from behind each other that there has been a move which favours an attacker. I'd be interested in your views on this, personally I am not keen on the change.
Personally I am in favour of any rule changes that make attacking more of a challenge. The concept that a formed battalion of infantry behind some guns wouldn't fire in a 10 or 15 minute period when an enemy formation is approaching them doesn't seem plausible to me. Battlefields are fluid and to assume men won't do everything they can to defend themselves is unlikely. If we assume that units in a hex would be completely static then that's a realism issue for me.
I feel like we have moved too much in favour of an attacker. I know that it can be enjoyable to launch a devastating attack. But the effect in some PBEM games I'm playing to allow an 'arcade blitzkrieg' style of play that doesn't reflect the challenges of commanding an army in the Napoleonic period. As digital generals we already have much more information than our historical counterparts and making defenders less effective isn't really to my liking. I want my games to have a balance of realism and challenge, and I don't mind losing and I certainly like to win. But I'd rather do either in the style of the time and I'm stating to feel like we've taken a step away from that.
But I might be alone in that thought
