This was my first foray into PG (Modern), so I decided to go with a small scenario. One map, about 50 Egyptian units and 20 Israeli. 12 of the Israeli units are Centurions, and there is only a small infantry force. They are assaulting a heavily dug-in Egyptian infantry force, backed with 57mm and 85mm AT guns, a couple of mortars, and some WW2 era T34/85s and SU-100s. The Israelis are trying to take a town on the back of a large hill from the Egyptians, and to hopefully clear a road off the map from the town.

I set up what I thought was a strong Egyptian defense, with units (mostly infantry) on a small hill in front of the Israelis and in 2 small towns in front of the large hill. Minefields would make a direct assault on the hill difficult. I set up a substantial reserve near the town itself.

And that's when things went terribly wrong. As it turns out, nothing the Egyptians had was a match for the Centurions. Ignoring the 57mm AA guns, the Egyptians were attacking Centurions with 7 or 8 AT factors. The Centurions have an armor of 10. So, an 8 needs a 12 to hit, or a 10 (1 in 6 shot) while the 7s couldn't hit without a crossfire or being adjacent. And the Israelis had no need to be adjacent, because the Centurions 12 AT fire could shred the 3 armor of the SU-100s and the 5 armor of the T-34s. For instance, at one point, I rolled up a Centurion next to a T-34 and rolled snake-eyes. Okay, 2 (die roll) + 12 (AT factor) + 1 adjacent = 15 - 5 armor for the T-34 = 10. So, yes, snake-eyes was still a kill. And it only took at 6 at range (6+12-5 = 13) to eliminate 2 steps. And the Centurions are efficient, so they get 2 shots per activation. Suffice it to say that all of the armor I put in the Egyptian front line was shredded. The AT guns were tougher to kill, and most of them survived, however they were still just praying for high rolls to do anything. And eventually, 4 steps of Centurions did die. However, with the Egyptian AFVs virtually all destroyed, and a good number of infantry surrendering, the Israelis didn't even have to take the town or road to have a decisive victory. When I called it after 9 turns, the Israelis were ahead something like 69-40. And all of that 69 came from step losses (tank losses count double). They could just pull back and savor the victory.

So, what could I have done differently as the Egyptians? Here are a few thoughts.

1. Hide the armor. Keep it well away from the front, and unleash it en masse to try to overwhelm scattered Israeli units. There aren't enough Israelis to sustain high losses.
2. Don't defend as heavily on the crest of the ridge. Make the Israelis come to the Egyptians, even if it means giving up the column shift for being uphill.
3. Change the layout of the defenses. I had a string of mines and wire that discouraged the Israelis from coming up the main road, so most of them just went around the Egyptian defenses because the Egyptians couldn't set up within 2 hexes of one of the map edges. I should have put the mines in a tighter ring around the objective town. Wire does nothing to tanks, and there wasn't enough infantry in the scenario (3 INF platoons and one HMG platoon) for it to be a major factor.
4. Assault whenever possible. I actually tried to do this. 2 Egyptians give 10 FP, and will always get 1 shift for INF vs. unescorted AFVs (a big change from regular PG here) so they are firing on a decent column. Sure, 2 Centurions is 20 factors, and a leader and morale will kick them up to the top column, and lots of Egyptians will die, however the Egyptians have plenty of units, and should be just fine with a 2-1 loss ratio. I tried to do this in the scenario, realizing how badly outclassed the Egyptian armor was, and the loss of a couple of leaders made that difficult. Plus, infantry losses are only 1 VP, while tanks are 2, and the Israelis only have 24 steps of tanks.

Fog of War hurt the Egyptians in this one with several turns ending quickly (the +1 to the FoW when a side passes makes a big difference, as with the big initiative difference, the Israelis could finish their moves before more than a handful of Egyptians had moved) so they couldn't maneuver their bigger force into better positions.

So, why did I rate this a 4? Because I think with a better defensive plan, the Egyptians have a good chance of forcing the Israelis to withdraw and try again when they had more forces, as they did historically.