Fortifications still needing tweaking?

[MishaTX]

I may be seeing things, but it seems to me that barrier type fortifications still don't quite work as they do in actual real life.

What I mean is that the enemy gets a bonus for being in a fortification like that no matter where it's being attacked from. Now, obviously, if they're only being attacked from one direction, it really doesn't matter. Jumping over a wall to defend from an attack from the north is just as effective as being behind the same wall facing an attack from the south. But if you're being attacked from multiple directions?

There's already a term for a barrier type fortification being behind your enemy. We call it a "backstop." And it's neither cover nor concealment.

[veji1]

To be honest I still don't quite understand how they work in many cases. For example my limited understanding/feeling at this stage is :

- good old wall like in Fredericksburg that get attacked head on : really good defensive position, stay in it and defend.

- reinforced fence in the middle of a plain à la Antietam : hummm... well it does give you cover so it's better than being standing in the plain by yourself, but I have the feeling bein in the woods in your regular line formation might still be better.

- forest fortifications like in Chancellorsville... No clue but I have a weird feeling too that because of the slowed down rate of fire, or at least completely different without that "first volley effect" they might not be that better than just being in the woods which already gives you solid cover.

[MishaTX]

I have the same feeling about fortifications, visually. It seems to me that units not in fortifications inflict more casualties per volley while those in fortifications look more like almost demoralized units with random puffs of smoke. Whether the number of casualties inflicted per minute is higher in fortifications than in the "open" I can't say for sure, though. It may just be a visual thing.

But I definitely don't seem to get much advantage from shooting at a wall from behind while the troops behind that wall are defending against my troops attacking from the opposite direction, and that's just not realistic. You can't be on both sides of a wall at the same time.

[Bobby Fiasco]

I just get annoyed when people in those positions take flanking fire when really, they're hunkered down in something.

[A. P. Hill]

It may well be that in "simplifying" some code the earthwork/trench/wall/fortifications are viewed from only one direction despite the quadrant of the attack?  If that's the case lowering buff affects the position from all 4 sides equally.

Perhaps what needs done is dividing the position into quadrants, with lessening degrees of protecting buffs.

Just my opinion. 

[Wandering1]

As far as the implementation goes, Hill's got the basics right; the unit is treated as only facing one direction (from the shield that is presented as the cover point). This is problematic when the fortification defends larger than a 90 degree field of vision.

The individual units are not treated as individual objects with regards to cover (that would be Total War implementation, which is much more complex than this). As such, regardless of whether the individual unit is on one end of a long stretch of cover or not, it is able to shoot at the other end without worrying about range, because range is also calculated from the same point.

In fortifications, the unit is basically treated as doing platoon fire, instead of firing as a volley. It ends up being the same damage over time, but it reacts to shooting different targets a lot quicker than with a volley. 

[jamieva]

Given the choice of a fence line or being in the woods, I always pick the woods.  I dont see where a fence line makes much of a difference than being out in the open