Terrain effects suggestion

[Bivoj]

When playing this great game, one of the space of improvement I have experienced is the terrain. Currently, I recognised only one effect terrain has - the amount of "cover" (defense bonus) and I find little annoying is, that the roughness of terrain has no impact on formation. It does not matter if it is clear, woods or town, the lines or columns are still the same, moving in the same speed, retaining the same cohesion and combat effect.

 

So, the suggestion:

rough terrain would change the formation of the unit to "disrupted" immediately after entering it (it will look like a unit after melee in current game).

Effects of disruption:

- moving slower

- lower firepower

- unit cannot charge

 

If the unit remain stationary, it recovers its formation (even in the rough terrain, but it takes more time).

 

Skirmishers are not affected by this "rule".

If only part of the unit enters rough terrain, only part of the unit is disrupted, but it slows down the whole unit.

 

 

Also, it would be nice to have special "formation" for occupying built-up areas (even recognisable by ingame graphics - like soldiers in buildings). But I can imagine, that this would be very hard to implement.

[David Fair]

Bivoj,

The most obvious divergence regarding terrain is that the stone walls that line the roads, some of the hills, and fields were key military positions. In UGG these stone walls are on the map - but don't provide "cover". These stone walls played a key role in how and where Gettysburg was fought. For example: Pickett's Charge was stopped at the stone wall with Union Troops shouting "Fredericksburg!". Why? Because at Fredericksburg the CSA had the advantage of stone walls and defeated the Union troops attacking these critical and advantageous defensive positions. On Day 4 Lee formed his army behind the series of stone walls that were deemed to strong a position to attack. Specifically, for example: "The Angle" at Gettysburg is one of the highlights to a visit to Gettysburg. On the UGG map the position is of no military relevance.

The Pennsylvania farmland around Gettysburg tends to be rolling ridges and hills punctuated by areas of forest with thick underbrush. I agree that these areas would disrupt linear formations. Once troops were established in these areas of rough terrain I'm not certain I'd agree that this would decrease firepower significantly. It certainly would be difficult to charge out of, or into, these areas.

Devil's Den would be impossible for linear formations or large numbers of men.

Round Top would be impossible for artillery - as would slopes of hills for deployment. The artillery needed to be deployed with the axle of the gun roughly parallel to the ground on a relatively flat surface.

I'll disagree strongly regarding soldiers in buildings. When snipers occupied buildings they were often quickly driven out with a round from a 3" Ordnance Rifle. For the most part armies from both sides avoided fighting from buildings - certainly nothing on the scale of a division occupying a town during the ACW. Most of the buildings were wood - which splintered frightfully causing injuries far in excess of anything an artillery round could do to a sniper under cover outside a building. Brick and masonry building at this time were not reinforced structurally. As a result they tended to fall apart when under fire from artillery. It was dangerous to try to fight around buildings as the disadvantages outweighed the benefit given the artillery characteristics.

[CaptainMcMuffin]

I agree with David.

[Bivoj]

I fully agree with David. The walls are also important, I have just forgot to mention.

 

Also, I agree with the Built-up-areas with David; I would just add, that it should be impossible to make linear formation in BUA.

[CmdrMctoast]

Agree.

[Pierre]

It would be cool if the units would line up along stone walls if positioned by them.

[N.C.rebel]

I agree Piere right now walls don't provide anything.

[TDuke]

Agree

[WesleyBarras]

Bivoj,

The most obvious divergence regarding terrain is that the stone walls that line the roads, some of the hills, and fields were key military positions. In UGG these stone walls are on the map - but don't provide "cover". These stone walls played a key role in how and where Gettysburg was fought. For example: Pickett's Charge was stopped at the stone wall with Union Troops shouting "Fredericksburg!". Why? Because at Fredericksburg the CSA had the advantage of stone walls and defeated the Union troops attacking these critical and advantageous defensive positions. On Day 4 Lee formed his army behind the series of stone walls that were deemed to strong a position to attack. Specifically, for example: "The Angle" at Gettysburg is one of the highlights to a visit to Gettysburg. On the UGG map the position is of no military relevance.

The Pennsylvania farmland around Gettysburg tends to be rolling ridges and hills punctuated by areas of forest with thick underbrush. I agree that these areas would disrupt linear formations. Once troops were established in these areas of rough terrain I'm not certain I'd agree that this would decrease firepower significantly. It certainly would be difficult to charge out of, or into, these areas.

Devil's Den would be impossible for linear formations or large numbers of men.

Round Top would be impossible for artillery - as would slopes of hills for deployment. The artillery needed to be deployed with the axle of the gun roughly parallel to the ground on a relatively flat surface.

I'll disagree strongly regarding soldiers in buildings. When snipers occupied buildings they were often quickly driven out with a round from a 3" Ordnance Rifle. For the most part armies from both sides avoided fighting from buildings - certainly nothing on the scale of a division occupying a town during the ACW. Most of the buildings were wood - which splintered frightfully causing injuries far in excess of anything an artillery round could do to a sniper under cover outside a building. Brick and masonry building at this time were not reinforced structurally. As a result they tended to fall apart when under fire from artillery. It was dangerous to try to fight around buildings as the disadvantages outweighed the benefit given the artillery characteristics.

Agreed David.  This is a huge flaw that needs to be addressed. The terrain does not give the defensing force enough of an advantage. 

 

These issues don't annoy me on the 1st day because both armies are on the move. The 2nd and 3rd day when at least one side is somewhat dug in is what makes your point really apparent. 

 

Little Round Top gives Vincent's Brigade little advantage and can be overrun with ease. The same can be said about the 3rd day in the Union Center. Without terrain adjustments, the realism goes way down. You might as well have 100% flat land and let both armies slug it out.

[Zelekendel]

Also, roads are of no significance to movement - they should be very important for troops arriving to the front - and massively important for arty, whether or not limbers are added (which of course they should - no reason why not, with the same mechanics as brigade columns).

[Xenutheeviloverlord]

Perhaps accidents be simulated on dangerous terrain? Like losing an artillery piece as it tried to cross rocky terrain or gets swamped in a stream?