How does Cover work?

[Uncle_Joe]

Hi all,

I've been playing the SP series off and on since it first debuted. In all that time, I've never really gotten a handle on exactly how Cover works.

Is there a primer on this type of stuff somewhere? The SP manual mentions what terrains give good Cover, but I'd like to know a little more of the nuts and bolts if this is something that has been brought up before.

I ask because playing in recent games, I realized that Cover can seem really erratic. Much of it is probably simply statistical variance and selective memory, but knowing what it is supposed to be doing would help mitigate that.

For example, in my latest game I had a platoon of German infantry in Stone Buildings overlooking a field. About 2 platoons of Ami troops move into the field (September fields) and we open up. The battle rages for turns (ranges of about 200m), but in the end, the troops that are more or less in the open are getting the better of the troops in cover. Obviously they are generating more shots, but individual shots still seem to be causing similar effects regardless of the difference in cover state..

In another case, I had a squad in the woods seemingly take an insane amount of pounding and not really be budged. The same Ami squads fired and fired and didnt cause but one hit while the squads in the buildings would occasionally lose 2-3 guys in a turn from equal fire.

Finally, the attacks seem 'streaky' in some cases. I've observed that if the Rifles hit, its more likely that MG or Sniper Rifle will hit as well. So, I'll see: miss,miss,miss,miss,miss, 1 dead, 1 dead, 1 dead, miss,miss,miss,miss etc. Is this an intended effect (perhaps representing that a particular group of soldiers are being hit)?

If anyone could point me to an article or discussion of how cover functions (reduce chance of hit? 'Cover save'? converts losses to suppression? etc) I'd greatly appreciate it!

Thanks in advance!

[Smersh]

stone building should have provided your infantry an clear advantage over the americans on clear terrain. the second advantage would have been that the americans were most likely also moving.

the other factors to consider are, how did you have your units shooting. did you concentrate on one enemy squad? did you spread your shots around? did you have each of your own squad shoot all its shots, and not skip around? Also what was the experiance and morale of your men compared to the americans.

The best tactic which is brought up alot on these threads, is never shoot twice with the same unit, if there are more units around. skip around.

[Uncle_Joe]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

[RubberNeck]

Cover seems to be diminished by firing from different angles. The source code wizards would have to address this more specifically, but I make it a practice to engage enemy infantry with multiple units whenever possible. Assume my unit X fires on enemy unit and draws return fire. My follow-up shot is from my unit Y which is ideally not in the same hex as X. When enemy unit returns fire on unit Y, it is then engaged by either unit X again, or better still by unit Z in another hex. Casualties are invariably higher for the enemy unit when done this way than by shooting 4 or 5 rounds from X, then 4 or 5 from Y and so on.

This may also be because suppression is lessened by spreading it over multiple units which allows for greater firing accuracy.

Dean

[Smersh]

yeah its a general rule that if at all possible never shoot twice with the same unit if you expect return fire. Its better to go from 'x, y, z' like in your example. This really does make a big difference.

about scale, yeah unfortunetly the icons, including buildings are not to scale. 50m could represent several smaller buildings.

[Tiger_Reyth]

Right and even though I'm a newb I do know that if a unit is outnumbered 2-1 there would be a pretty serious suppression issue even if it is in the superior cover of a stone building because supression occurs even if the shots miss.

So I would think that what happened is when your guys opened up initially you had a superior advantage and probably scared the hell out of whoever you shot at first.

But not all the units felt the same threat because you didn't have enough firepower to supress them all and those others fired back which started to break your guys down.

By repeating this process your cover advantage would be worn down by the significant supression caused by the other units because you would be unable to keep them all suppressed so they would work all your guys up on suppression and in that state you couldn't hit a brick wall and so eventually they just wiped your guys based on superior firepower.

Thats how the comp gets me all the time.

So the advantage of cover would only apply in the beginning and would be negated by the overwhelming return firepower.

In other words, the only way to realize a superior cover advantage over an extended period of time is to have at least enough firepower to keep most if not all your targets supressed which would keep the supression for your guys low.

Hey that reminds me! Nobody brought up the leadership factor! Were your guys in a company or a lone platoon? If they were in a lone platoon were they cross attached to another company besides 'A'? And were they in contact with their chain of command or out of contact? Because with all that fire coming at them they'd need as much supression cushioning from leadership as possible

Since I'm a newb I could be missing something but the above seems to be the practical reality of the situation IMHO

Tiger_Reyth