Protective Effect of Stone Walls?

[Paul AU]

Newbie alert: forgive me if this has been discussed elsewhere. (Just point me there).

This is another one of those “How does this really work”?

I can easily see (in the game) how walls (and hedges/fences) slow down units trying to cross them. But can’t see (yet) if or how they provide cover from fire.

You’d think that a stone wall would be dandy cover, but some of my game-experiences suggest that they have no protective effect.

If my infantry (say) wants to “get behind a wall”, where do I place them? “On” the wall, or just behind it? I can’t see much difference, either way.

For an extreme example, a squad 2 metres behind a stone wall (or, as close as I could get) which was “sneaking” was shot up (by distant MGs) , pretty much the same as other units all around it, which were at various distances from the wall, and in various states of movement. (This is just an example, not the only case).

And in a slightly related vein, how can I be sure that I am setting up my troops "in" a Trench. I'm never quite sure, the "place"-arrow thingy just shows them as being in "open ground" (if that's where the trench is).

[flamingknives]

if you're squad is prone behind a wall, they have a 0% exposure - that is, they cannot be shot directly. Unfortunately, the AI only recognises terrain that it is in as cover, so if you're in the open behind the wall, it thinks that it's in the open and will try to run away to better cover.

You don't even have to be right behind the wall to get cover, it's all based on LoS calculations. On the wall is a very bad place to be as, IIRC, you get 100% exposure.

Hedges and fences provide some visual cover, but they suck for protection.

Trenches shrink a bit after setup, so avoid putting men too near the end of one. Beyond that, you've got to do it by eye and make sure your unit is centered on the trench.

On a related topic, a trench behind a wall on the crest of a hill is a fantastic fighting position and a good place for ATGs

[Bone_Vulture]

'Knives covered all the necessary info. Walls act as a good shield to cover infantry from direct fire and from being spotted, but it fails to provide cover for actual combat.

Be aware that walls also serve as an excellent hull down position for tanks. I once even had a bunker hull down behind one - don't ask me how.

[CombinedArms]

Another way to put it is that (at least in CM), walls aren't very good cover for infantry in an attack (mostly because with the CMx1 engine infantry doesn't recognize the wall's cover as cover.)

On the other hand, it can have fantastic value on defense. A trench behind a stone wall provides great cover, as 'knives noted. The trench is already good cover and the stone wall protects really well against direct HE fire from tanks, the achilles heel of the trench. Lacking a trench, foxholes behind a stone wall are pretty good, too. This is partly because of the extra cover from the foxhole and partly because your defender recognizes that he's in cover, so he's likely to stay put. I've seen a platoon defending in trenches or foxholes behind a stone wall hold out for amazingly long periods against combined tank-infantry fire. It can make a real pivot point for your defense, holding a flank or anchoring the center.

[Dandelion]

Firepower against troops behind a stone wall is reduced by 70%, same as sandbags. Reduction is 100% if HIDE or PIN or otherwise lying down. So it is rather effective. A hedge (low hedge) and wooden fence reduces firepower with 40%.

A trench reduces incoming FP with 95%. So you see why it is so extremely efficient when placed behind walls (100FP comes through as 3.5FP if it has to cross the wall - and if placed on a ridge or hillock it has to). Of course, that puts a strain on your imagination. But you could always imagine the trenches to be knee deep, or something.

Cheerio

Dandelion

[CombinedArms]

Nice to have Dandelion's specific numbers. I can never remember these things....

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Dandelion:

Firepower against troops behind a stone wall is reduced by 70%

...

A trench reduces incoming FP with 95%.

...

(100FP comes through as 3.5FP if it has to cross the wall...

Cheerio

Dandelion

100 FP * (100%-95%) * (100%-70%) = 5 FP * 30% = 1.5 FP

Gruß

Joachim

[Philippe]

Hmm...are we quite sure about the math? The battery in my calculator is dead so I'm doing it in my head, but I'm coming up with a rather different answer (the battery in my head is burned out, too...).

[Philippe]

Never mind. Just figured out what you were saying. My brain battery really is burnt out tonight -- I was reading 100-95 as 100 to 95, not 100 minus 95.

[Paul AU]

Hmm... ok.

Thanks for the info, chaps. Appreciated.

(And yes, a trench behind a wall does challenge the imagination).

[MikeyD]

This was a hot topic over on the CMAK side for awhile because that game has sandbag fortifications as map terrain elements, and those sandbag 'forts' appear to operate just like stone walls. One problem with both those forts and the stone walls, the AI doesn't seem to see them as cover so a crawling infantry squad is likely to crawl THROUGH a stone wall in order to get to the brush on the other side.

[wbs]

From Joachim:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Dandelion:

Firepower against troops behind a stone wall is reduced by 70%

...

A trench reduces incoming FP with 95%.

...

(100FP comes through as 3.5FP if it has to cross the wall...

Cheerio

Dandelion

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

100 FP * (100%-95%) * (100%-70%) = 5 FP * 30% = 1.5 FP

Question: How did you arrive at these FP values? (i.e. trench reduces FP 95%, wood fence 40%, stone wall 70%, etc.)

Are these listed somewhere, or did someone work them out by trial and error? Are there values available for other types of terrain as well (such as woods, Pine trees, rocky ground, rough, etc.)?