Taking cover: Tactically redundant ?

[Massive_attack]

Hey guys, this is sort of a general consensus ive developed after multiple engagements, so bare with me.

Cover in this game, in my opinion, is not broken per say, but pretty useless.

Unlike buildings, which require infantry to storm in, or an artillery salvo, cover (stone walls that your men hide behind) are of almost no value in my engagements.

Lets look at the big picture:
Unless you use small unit sizes, of roughly under 200 men per line infantry (mine is at a comfortable 240) cover will be virtually useless. First off, only your front soldiers can fire, so any tactics you may have developed such as rank fire are redundant in cover. Next, cover lowers fire rate of troops. Many will simply not shoot at all unless ordered to do so, the soldiers lose any sense of self preservation, and cower behind the wall. Next, cavalry are given an excellent opportunity to flank or smash through infantry in cover. Many times my infantry, even with bayonets, have been overrun by light cavalry because i left them in cover. Though cover does help preserve unit health, its purpose becomes redundant when the soldiers take little to no action returning fire, and are pinned down into a set formation, and not allowed to adjust themselves. Many times i have witnessed half a unit of line infantry be harassed by the enemy while the other half twiddled its thumbs. The AI also fails to use cover well, and frankly im begining to suspect its not usefull at all.

Still, i'd like to hear your thoughts on it. I suppose theres no better way to distract enemy infantry and get them to waste ammo than cover, and my soldiers do SOMETIMES return fire irregularily, and from that fire they inflict more casualties than they lose, however i fail to see its efficiency. To me its a tactical liability, and ultimately rather redundant.

Thoughts ? I'd like to hear a debate.

[coman]

Cover becomes very important when out numbered, or under a strong shelling. Such as taking a big city or star fort. It's a good place to eat a sandwich. You can also make a last stand under cover quite nicely.

I use cover in multiple ways:

1. I push the enemy into cover, then pin, then flank and kill them.

2. I push enough line infantry into contact, take cover (intentionally in contact near cover), then pin the enemy, flank and kill them.

3. I often situate an attractive horse trap in a field with stone and wood fencing, grass and trees nearby. Such as a cannon troop with a line infantry troop. Meanwhile a flanking and killing force is 100-125 yards away on an oblique, just waiting for the cavalry to take the juicy target in the center of the field. I will then square the infantry around the cannon, press the attack from the flank and pin and kill the enemy.

4. You can receive an enemies volley from under cover, then stand, away from the wall quite quickly and let them have it.

So cover does have tactical purpose, but not nearly as much as placing an obstruction in your enemies way, nor is it anywhere near as valuable as concealment.

I think it's tactically appropriate for the period. Buildings and walls need to be addresses however. Clearly they are intended to be strong points, but the game just doesn't take effective enough use out of them.

coman

[vampy]

The AI only functions well in my experience on medium or small unit size settings have you not found this to be true?

[coman]

I have only played on Large. It seems to do ok. Perhaps I'll try a smaller set next time. I don't mind the smaller battles, tactics are the same, and makes close in fighting, cities and forts that much more fun.

I play with the first person cam quite abit.

[Dizoakius Maximus]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I seem to recall my Ranger force conducting a frightful slaughter from behind a stonewall. Maybe cover only works well for skirmisher type units. I had 3 regular Rangers and Rogers' Rangers as a raiding force, and got attacked by 2 militia, 1 coeurs de bois, 1 pikemen, a general and a demi cannon battery.

I fell back out of cannon range and tried to find cover to let my guys have some surprise (sadly for some reason even in deep woods/scrub, my guys weren't hiding or only 1 unit would). Once in position they brought up their pikemen, who succeeded in getting into melee with one of my Rangers until I pulled them back, however they were getting pummeled the whole time by the other 3 and by the time they reorganized and started to push again, they were down 50%. One more good volley from all 4 units and they were off to the races. The militia and the coeurs de bois then came up just as we took cover behind a long stone wall, and they got promptly chewed up. The militia took cover behind another wall, but then I flanked them out and shot them up. For some reason the cannon crew abandoned their gun and tried to get into melee with me with predictable results and last but not least, the general charged and got smacked around with 2 good volleys before he took a bullet and that was all she wrote.

I have noticed that with line infantry its pretty pointless to have them in cover (unless im sheltering them from arty fire) but I think I need to experiment more with skirmishers.

[Kip]

I usually just line my men up behind cover, but don't actually "right-click drag" them into the cover. This way, I can spread my lines as thin as I'd like (under cover it seems they have to deploy in 4 ranks or so), and I can still utilize firing drills. I'm not sure if I even still derive cover bonuses this way, but it looks cool and makes for a dynamic battle line (instead of a boring 10 unit long straight line that's pierced at obtuse angles by hedgerows and fences)

[Arjai]

I saw another topic on this a few days ago, and somebody summed up the situation pretty well. I'll paraphrase him and add a bit myself:

Basically, the "Hide behind cover" function is pretty worthless, like y'all said. Your guys are bunched up really tight, and only the front guys fire (and slowly at that, it seems). While you do get significant defensive bonuses from the walls, your firepower is decreased to pre-rank fire levels (at least. I still don't know if they fire more slowly but it sure seems like it). Another thing is is that it makes them more tired. I haven't actually noticed this myself but I've read other peoples' comments on that. Like, your troops will just be chillin there, crouched behind the wall, and they'll start dropping from fresh to tired.

However, there is good news. If you deploy your guys behind the wall but not actually "in-cover" like KippyK said, they'll fare better. I mean, the wall is still there, and it still blocks low shots. I used the walls like that in one of the first battles I played. Total newb. Didn't realize there was a way to make them crouch at the wall. I just lined my guys up behind the wall and waited for the enemy to engage me, and I noticed I took a lot fewer casualties than the enemy did, even though we were fairly evenly matched. Try it out!

Hope that helps!

[coman]

I have to say this; and without getting into another pissing match with someone, the walls DO WORK. As the previous poster says from the other thread we argued, they do block wild shots that are low. They do stop cannon balls that hit them.

You have to play with your unit a bit, sometimes it gets stuck, particularly after firing. Toggle fire at will on and off, move them away and back, or hit the ungroup key.

A lot of these things need to be done at various points to reset the AI, such as Platoon firing and other things. Watch the state of the unit in the display, be aware it should say idle, not firing or running when there is no enemy present. Just pay attention and place yourself at a good point on the wall.

Helps to enter the wall somewhat spread out.

I do think it needs work, as I said, with buildings, but walls are not totally useless. I just don't see much use in cowering there when I'd much rather be maneuvering to flank and kill my enemies.

[Eastern Weasel]

Well, from my observations cover provides a very good... uh cover against musket and even cannon(!) fire (cannonballs seem not able to penetrate it). unfortunately line infrantry (and its analogs, i.e. units who benefit from rank firing techs) cant fire by rank when utilizing cover, which in turn limits cover usage to skirmisher unit type only (rangers, sharp shooters etc), since they dont utilize any of firing drills, with every unit in formation being able to shoot at any given time and not require any tech for that.
So IMO cover is still pretty usefull to put your skirmishers behind it and enjoy the benefit of great defence it provides while being able to utilize your own fire power at maximum, unlike in houses where only certain amount of units will shoot, depending on amount of windows in building and their positioning.
In some way it even makes sense for me, that line inf cant utilize cover (at least effectively), it adds more uniqueness and usefulness to skirmish units like rangers and greencoats (they actually were supposed to fight like this, utilizing their surroundings, unlike line infantry). While it might not be especially realistic, but from the point I see it adds to gameplay. I would vote for making line infantry (and similiar units utilizing rank firing drills) to be unable to use field cover (except buildings).

[sdomi_cabsav@Hotmail]

Cover is what saved my ass in countless battles. A well entrenched army behihnd cover with secured flanks is deadly, adding another unit of muskets behnind the units in cover also helps grealy to repel bayonet charges.

[regret]

i find the biggest use for cover is to hold up the enemy line. like in a situation where you have town watch or some militia.

Put the weak troops in cover and put your line troops behind them standing. the A.I usually stand and exchanges fire with your crap troops in cover while your line troops happily slaughters them. even if the enemy charges, they engage your fodder. Grenadiers are ideal for cover too, cos they have small unit sizes, good melee stats plus they can occasionally toss grenades over.

[ckangas]

under 200 units isn't 'small' :S, the normal/average unit size seems to be around 120 (for line units)/60 for light infantry.

As said before, you can always use cover without actively hiding behind it. The real benefit (mostly against the AI) is you can use a single unit of militia to pin down/occupy 3-4 units of line infantry. Meanwhile, you can circle your heavier units (grenadiers, line infantry) around to the enemy's flank and do the real damage.

Classic example of economies of force and mass in a tactical situation .

[blank]

Works fine for me. The last battle i fought, one of my militia units in cover happily destroyed a Prussian line infantry in 1-on-1 (the militia was positioned on the flank, and the prussian unit tried to get past 'em).

It does take away firepower of larger units (like my 200-man line inf), but skirmishers and riflemen do quite good behind walls.

[kennosen]

I too have some difficulty and success in setting units against walls.
I find that untill its fixed 100 %, because we all agree its broken somewhat, whatever the unit size.. I place them 3 rank deep just behind the wall, I dont use the 'mouse over wall' icon way, just a yard or so behind, they still fire as fast and effectively as if in open ground. Plus still getting protection by the wall.

Its good also to see that enemy canon doesnt have x-ray targeting either. In one battle I needed to avoid casualties, so in order to take out 2 units of canon, I let my one unit infantry languish in a ditch, then used the undulating terrain to move my cavalry into a postion to charge them with minimal losses.

[Sacerdos]

Cover is working just fine for me, you don't need fire by rank when you don't take damage at all from the front. You're going to get a unit killed though if you just leave it behind a wall and don't do anything to cover its flanks from cavalry, and flanking cavalry attacks are about the only smart thing the battle AI does (just square up when they come along, its that easy actually).

[Freeman]

well for me it works. i agree about the whole outnumbered thing. positioning my men behind cover and supporting them with artillery works. i once beat two armies (not full stack) in a single battle with the proper use of wall cover. although after the battle my units where badly mauled. but hey i won. although i have to agree that pathfinding and the unit placement behind cover is stupid. id like to be able to line up an entire regiment behind the length of a wall so that the whole regiment can lay down fire. kinda like in MTW2 when you can line up an entire unit on a settlement wall.

[Mechstra]

I never actually take cover in-game, as I've found it to be very restrictive and so on, but I almost always try to place my men behind walls (standing normally), as they still get defensive bonuses from just being behind the wall (but not crouching).

Using this, in one of my latest battles I beat 561 enemy troops using 197 of my own (4 of my understrength grenadier regiments against 3 militia, 1 line, 1 regiment of horse, and a battery of demi-cannons). I only lost 90-odd men, against the enemy's 540 or so. A total slaughter, all thanks to my lovely cover.

[jaklei]

It's definately not reduntant if you place another unit behind the unit taking cover. The covering unit will get supporting fire from the unit behind them

[Jayzilla]

i like cover to protect my fragile grenadiers when the enemy are at long range. Cover for line infantry is probably not a good idea.

also, have you ever tried cover with light infantry? I do believe they all shoot.

[ckangas]

i like cover to protect my fragile grenadiers when the enemy are at long range. Cover for line infantry is probably not a good idea.

also, have you ever tried cover with light infantry? I do believe they all shoot.

If you stretch out any unit far enough they won't incur issues (or so it seems) with cover...its just when line infantry gets 3 deep : /.