How does Cover work?

Uncle_Joe · #1 January 4th, 2007, 08:51 PM

Well, that was just a particular example, but its a trend that I've noticed over playing. Cover sometimes seems to be very key in holding a position, but in others the guys laying in the field outside seem to be harder to dislodge.

I know there are a million other factors that contribute (as you've listed), but what I'm looking for I guess is a relative list of Cover types and what they would actually do.

For example:

Infantry Target:
Wooden Buildings: Incoming Accuracy -20%, +10% to Morale check.
Woods hex: Incoming Accuracy -15% (does not apply to indirect)
Rough: Incoming Accuracy -15%

etc etc.

I would have figured that someone would have made a 'Cover table' long ago given the amount of play that SP gets. I tried scanning some old newsgroups and came up empty.

Smersh · #2 January 5th, 2007, 03:08 AM

I think,there is an in-game list of different terrain types and what kind of cover they give or the the manual may also have this list. Its been a while since I've looked, and I've largely memorised the different terrain types.

but the discription is more: poor, good, excellent cover, then percentages and specific effects like you want.

the set back of terrain that provides good cover, like rough, and building hexes is that they also have a movement penalty.

Cross · #3 January 5th, 2007, 11:00 AM

How many turns had your German infantry been in the buildings? Because IIRC they won't get the full advantage of the cover unless they'd been there for a couple of turns.

If they'd just moved into the building they are a moving more visible target. Once they've been there a few turns I believe the game engine sensibly considers that they will find good protective cover (dig in).

I could be wrong about this, so hopefully one of SP Camp guys will weigh in. I think they been very busy with a pending new release.

Uncle_Joe · #4 January 5th, 2007, 02:09 PM

Quote:

If they'd just moved into the building they are a moving more visible target. Once they've been there a few turns I believe the game engine sensibly considers that they will find good protective cover (dig in).

I could be wrong about this, so hopefully one of SP Camp guys will weigh in. I think they been very busy with a pending new release.

No, you are correct. The manual goes into this a bit. Essentially you have to have not moved for two turns to be considered 'stationary'.

In my example though, the troops started there and did not move. But again, that is just an example. I didnt mean it as some sort of ironclad demostration that cover doesnt work. As I said, I know there are a million other factors involved (including probably good ole luck).

To help isolate these factors, hard info on Cover would be great. For example, if the difference between Buildings and Fields is only 20% on a percentage based system, then indeed they would not be enough to turn the tide in my favor in the face of nearly 2 to 1 odds.

On the other hand, if they deflect 80% of incoming fire or somesuch, then I know that in that particular instance I likely just got unlucky. But knowing what the 'baseline' to expect makes it much easier to see the results in context.

Cross · #5 January 6th, 2007, 10:29 AM

Quote:

To help isolate these factors, hard info on Cover would be great. For example, if the difference between Buildings and Fields is only 20% on a percentage based system, then indeed they would not be enough to turn the tide in my favor in the face of nearly 2 to 1 odds.

Sorry, but I think SPCamo is unlikely to release hard statistical data on various cover types. I believe this has always been their policy, and they have explained reasons for this in the past.

IIRC, I think they want to maintain the right wargaming atmosphere, and perhaps want to keep the game from becoming a mathematical problem to be solved. They also want to avoid the endless discussions about specific values. But I could be wrong about this.

Quote:

I know we are talking about a sim,but in real life, being in a building in a firefight isn't as great as you might think. Unless it's been prepared, a unit outside only has to cover the openings. The windows and doors become natural aim points and half a squad is usually enough for that. If you want to shoot, you would usually have to expose yourself and the game may consider your unit less in cover if the unit is firing out. Steady fire into a window can make shooting out more deadly than shooting in,when you pop up in that opening you only have a second to find your target outside and it's not inside a "frame" to draw your attention, you are!
50 rounds of most LMG fire, concentrated in one area will be enough to seriously break up a wall of single thickness brick. (to start making a hole, that is)
I'm thinking the game may give more cover to indirect fire but less to direct, especially if you are firing back, it may be considered 'non stationary' for such purpose.

In this sim a building hex is far more than a couple of windows and a door. 50M in WWII europe could easily translate to six row(US) or terraced(UK) houses (at least 6 doors and 18 windows) and could include low walls, roofs (tiles removed, or missing) outlying buildings (coal sheds, barns etc) and surrounding shrubbery/cover.

It still remains a 50m front. But a unit of ten men should find far better cover here than in a 50M front of open field, IMHO.

I am sure you are right about getting more cover from indirect fire. This games models this really well. I think the supression and casualties rates for direct vs. indirect fire is generally excellent.