Terrain - Does it even matter?

[kondor999]

IMHO terrain needs to matter much more in terms of its effect on both movement rates and cohesion. Just something to add some flavor. Right now we have the best looking map I've ever seen and yet the game itself takes very little note of all the intricate features it displays.

 

Terrain does matter for cover, but it seems like my units can go through towns, woods and across streams as if they weren't there.  This kills immersion and waters down the gameplay considerably. 

 

It would be great if anchoring your position along woods actually mattered (because it would vastly slow down an outflanking maneuver).  Another example would be a big temporary reduction in cohesion/effectiveness during and for a period of time after crossing bad terrain.

 

This would add a tremendous amount of depth with zero increase in complexity.

[xccam]

Difficult Terrain does dramatically reduce unit condition I think? I agree that perhaps movement speed could be impacted though.

[TDuke]

IMHO terrain needs to matter much more in terms of its effect on both movement rates and cohesion. Just something to add some flavor. Right now we have the best looking map I've ever seen and yet the game itself takes very little note of all the intricate features it displays.

 

Terrain does matter for cover, but it seems like my units can go through towns, woods and across streams as if they weren't there.  This kills immersion and waters down the gameplay considerably. 

 

 

Totally agree.

[gekkoguy82]

I was wondering the same thing. Being on the top of a hill and defending doesn't seem to give you any particular advantage other than cover, if it happens to be wooded. I was also wondering if road movement made any difference, as far as speeding up movement or reducing fatigue, but it doesn't appear to. It'd be neat to place a brigade behind a stone wall and have that make a difference defensively.

[David Fair]

The stone walls were key defensive positions.  They are visually on the field but don't have an impact on defense. This changes where the battle was fought.  "The Angle" in UGG is irrelevant despite being the focal point of Pickett's Charge at the Battle of Gettysburg.

 

Height is another factor that particularly aided defensive positions.  Additionally heights were often the lines for breastworks which vastly improved defensive capabilities.

 

Because UGG abstracts "condition" and "morale" its an interesting question where the impact of moving through rough terrain/forests should fall.  Rough terrain's biggest impact on linear tactics is that it breaks up the cohesion of the line.  I guess this would be more of a "condition" thing rather than a "morale" thing.  In either case units defending from rough terrain should suffer lower casualties but be more vulnerable to charges from formed infantry.

[rommel22]

even cover doesn't seem to do much

[admin]

cover is very important for morale and casualty rates even now.

 

we addressed some of the issues with effect of types of terrain on unit speed in the patch that is now live on steam

we also plan to fix some of the elevation issues in the future patches. 

[David Fair]

rommel22 cover seems to me to be vitally important.  In my tests over the last 6 months cover appears to give as much as a 1.5X force multiplier in my experience.  I don't have access to the algorithm but typically I'm inflicting 1.3X to 2.0X casualties by defending from positions with cover.

[soccercw]

David sane here. VERY effective fire from cover locations. Combined with the hold button they can put up a formidable scrap

[squishband]

In that case it would be good to know what constitutes cover and have an indication of when a unit has taken it..

[soccercw]

In that case it would be good to know what constitutes cover and have an indication of when a unit has taken it..

 

You can tell this by the % of the cover bar indicator when you click on a unit

[TDuke]

I'm very glad about movement tweaks of the new version   Are you going to add malus when crossing rivers?

[David Fair]

There aren't any rivers on the Gettysburg battlefield.  Rock Creek is about the largest water obstacle and in July you can cross this in many places without getting your feet wet.

 

See google images "Rock Creek Gettysburg"

 

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1173&bih=724&q=rock+creek+gettysburg+pa&oq=%22rock+creek%22+Gettys&gs_l=img.1.1.0i24l2.6186.12993.0.15569.19.19.0.0.0.0.95.1582.19.19.0....0...1ac.1.47.img..1.18.1503.Una2bxlDtBg#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=jW5QaOIJcNBO3M%253A%3BjDpsS5cC2bSvxM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.angelfire.com%252Fpa4%252Fgettysburg%252Fimages%252Frockcreek5.JPG%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.angelfire.com%252Fpa4%252Fgettysburg%252Frockcreek.html%3B640%3B480

[TDuke]

Ah ok

[python]

anyway I am wondering if streams have any impact on speed of attack or strenght of defence.

[Riekopo]

I think there should be a map mode that shows the different cover types and their effects. Because right now I'm just guessing.

[David Fair]

Riekopo, why are you guessing?  

There is an indicator for "Cover" that identifies exactly how much "Cover" you unit has in it's current position.

[Riekopo]

Riekopo, why are you guessing?  

There is an indicator for "Cover" that identifies exactly how much "Cover" you unit has in it's current position.

 

Ya after I get there, but if I want to know ahead of time then I have to guess.

[thekev506]

I'd agree with the need for height to be more important, especially for artillery.  If you go to Cemetery Hill in real life although much of the ground which would've been open is now forest you can still see just how commanding a view of the area it provides, and how sheer a slope it would be to attack.  Little Round Top's another such place, though McPherson's ridge is quite minor.  I think distinguishing between 'major' and 'minor' hills would be a good idea.

[Zelekendel]

I would be very interested in the tactical significance of heights on ACW battles both in reality and in wargame terms. 

 

From real life I know that shooting from a higher elevation can cause you to overshoot, so would it really be an advantage in musketry? Naturally, a height makes for a great position to resist a bayonet charge and gives a great base of fire for artillery, but what about musketry?

[Paul_KT]

Defending a high position gives you the advantage that any enemy has to climb the hill to approach so will be more tired when they get there.  Apart from that there might be a morale advantage to being up slope?

[fallendown]

If you look at some of the battles in the east that involved hills, it was easy to see if you held the high ground you had an extremely important advantage, and that's in any time period. At Malvern Hill in 1862, Lee sent waves of infantry against the Union position to no avail. At Fredericksburg Marye's Heights, was held in depth, though troops positioned at the stonewall and sunken road did more damage. The heights behind Fredericksburg even today look like a formidable defensive position. Fredericksburg basically occupies a river valley, the only way to go south is to assault the heights. Even in '63 during Chancellorsville, Early held Fredericksburg, until Sedgwick out flanked the stonewall.  I've been to Gettysburg also, and you can instantly tell from the confederate positions, it was a horrible place to fight...

[Husserl]

In next weekly patches there will be improvements in terrain topography.

[Zelekendel]

Good - it is very welcome to better identify differences in heights (what about the "binocular mode" from Gettysburg") and line of sight, and to have the elevation play a bigger role.