Defense bonuses behind fortifications, fences, and walls

[Garyjd]

Does any have a great tactic for attacking units behind fortified positions, walls, and fences? I'm mainly talking about those identified with a shield symbol/icon above them. It appears the defenders benefit from the same cover bonuses regardless of where the attacker is positioned. It does not make sense to me that units seem to enjoy this bonus even when units get in and fire at them from behind. IMO the maximum benefit should only apply to frontal attacks, while it should be less if the defender is attacked on the flank or from behind.

Edited February 12, 2017 by Garyjd

[A. P. Hill]

Known issue and is being heavily discussed in various locations through the forums.

Rumor has it that the bonus will be detweeked, (is that a word?,) in the next patch.

[Andre Bolkonsky]

14 hours ago, A. P. Hill said:

Known issue and is being heavily discussed in various locations through the forums.

Rumor has it that the bonus will be detweeked, (is that a word?,) in the next patch.

Tweeked suffices. Or re-tweeked. Detweek sounds like a perjorative for a nerd. 

[Jamesk2]

On 2/12/2017 at 10:15 AM, Garyjd said:

Does any have a great tactic for attacking units behind fortified positions, walls, and fences? I'm mainly talking about those identified with a shield symbol/icon above them. It appears the defenders benefit from the same cover bonuses regardless of where the attacker is positioned. It does not make sense to me that units seem to enjoy this bonus even when units get in and fire at them from behind. IMO the maximum benefit should only apply to frontal attacks, while it should be less if the defender is attacked on the flank or from behind.

Just bring lots of units at them and concentrate fire. Fortified positions means nuts when you're bringing 3-4 brigades to bear on 1 brigades defending. Especially in Malvern Hill, where you can get up to 7(!) bridgades hitting the left fortification of the Union at the same time. It's actually a death trap.

[Silverey]

14 minutes ago, Jamesk2 said:

Just bring lots of units at them and concentrate fire. Fortified positions means nuts when you're bringing 3-4 brigades to bear on 1 brigades defending. Especially in Malvern Hill, where you can get up to 7(!) bridgades hitting the left fortification of the Union at the same time. It's actually a death trap.

 

That's why you don't usually use fortifications.

[Fred Sanford]

Along with fixing the direction of fire issues with fortifications, I'd like the ability to put more than a single unit in the fortification.  Say you have a long breastworks- as it is now, putting a brigade in there makes them spread out and dilutes their firepower.  Maybe the player should be allowed to put multiple units into a fortification, so long as each additional unit has room for their normal 'frontage'.  For example, say a breastworks is 1,200 yards long from end to end, measured along the length of the works.  Also assume that a 1,500 man brigade has a normal frontage of 500 yards, or 3 men per yard. (I'm just making up numbers).  If the player puts a 1,500 into our example breast works, it will spread out to occupy the length of it as is does now.  Say the player then adds another 1,500 man brigade.  The brigade already there will move over and share the breastworks.  There would not, however, be room to fit a third brigade 1,500 strong- there's only 200 yards of 'excess' left which is only enough to fit a 600 man unit fully.

Also, if you charge a fortification with multiple units, you fight them all.  That makes assaulting fortifications harder, which is a good thing IMO.

Finally, I think the game needs to distinguish between 'cover' (protects from fire) and 'concealment' (hides from view).  I don't see how a cornfield will slow down bullets very much.  It may conceal a unit, making it harder to hit, but no protection.  So maybe fields should have high stealth ratings, but not so much of a cover bonus. Forests would have good stealth bonuses, and some cover, but not as much they do now.  Also, I think some forests should be very difficult to move through if there's significant underbrush.  Swampy ground should also be much tougher to move through as well, especially for artillery and cavalry.

[Nuvag]

At some battles the foritfications can already be flanked, for example in Chantilly the Conferderates left flank can be quite easily be flanked and the defender gets the "Flanked!" flag. The union even managed to rout that unit quite easily, so the penalties are apparently applying even when in a fortification.
The defenders can shoot back in this fortification to the flanking army, but in other battles they cannot (dont remember which ones, sorry).

[The Lyon's Roar]

I believe the proper term is "nerfed".

I agree that the bonuses given to units behind cover seems a bit too high. I was playing Fredericksburg and managed to outflank the Marye's Heights line on the Union left and even with units firing enfilade into the cover, they didn't do much if any damage and if I tried to melee into those areas (even from the flank or rear), my guys took horrendous losses.