New cover system?

A new cover system that completely divides up the map into heavy cover, light cover and no cover would be good. (Bit like COH)

We've already got this, just look at the way the terrain is shaped. Bullets don't penetrate the ground.

Perhaps this could be for cover such as walls, heavy cover could be the rock walls, and light cover wooden fences, which could provide a little bit of cover (15% maybe).

The buildings in ETW sucked -- they just didn't deliver enough firepower and were just giant killing traps for artillery to bomb the out of. I hope they improve this in NTW; I'd like to see some Hougoumont-style farmhouses and such.

(Of course, if the devs read this, it means we will ONLY see an infinite trail of clone Hougoumonts from Cairo to Moscow!)

Originally Posted by Lance-Corporal Jones

The buildings in ETW sucked -- they just didn't deliver enough firepower and were just giant killing traps for artillery to bomb the out of. I hope they improve this in NTW; I'd like to see some Hougoumont-style farmhouses and such.

(Of course, if the devs read this, it means we will ONLY see an infinite trail of clone Hougoumonts from Cairo to Moscow!)

Farm buildings we can use are supposed to be in NTW, but like you say if there is Artill present then it's not good. I think buildings should stand much longer under fire than they do. If buildings are so easily reduced by cannon fire can someone explain why the Chateau and Farm at Waterloo resisted so well, all or most of the day, and that the French bought forward Howitzers, which were burning out buildings, not blowing them up!

A cannon ball used in a siege against a heavy wall will find enough resistance to force/weaken a much larger area than the actual roundshot size, where as the average 6-12pdr roundshot firing at a normal building will often just create more loop holes until lucky shots damage the overall structural integrity of said building.

I hope I may present as an example for my argument, the defense by led Eric Mackay with the Brit Para's of the school house, Arnhem Bridge 1944. One must consider that although the German King Tiger tanks 88mm gun fires a very high velocity shell compared with a cannons roundshot, that some of us will have still seen the photo of the French Cuirassier Generals breast plate, where the round shot did indeed have enough velocity to punchure a rather nifty hole, straight through the front cuirass plate, the unfortunate owner, and the back plate, with ease.

Now the German Tigers bought forward at Arnhem either had no HE(high explosive) shells, or the crews were to inept to use them, because they were firing AP(armour piercing) shells repeteadly into the school house which were just going through the building from end to end, without causing any real damage according to Eric Mackays accounts after the battle. The Germans then without actually checking the building, massed outside for the next advance, and were promptly given a really good seeing to by the Brits still in the school, who had only really suffered from splinters.

As a point of interest most of you wiil have seen the film Saving Private Ryan, remember the epic defense at the end for the bridge. Well when the Tiger Tank first fires, at a building it does little damage, and I am hoping that it was due to research done rather than how they choose to do the scene, but a tank in action will generally carry an AP round in the spout(barrel) the next shot does alot of damage, which should of being an HE round. Anyway my point is when you next see that film, look out for the way the film may well be attempting to portray solid shot having little effect on a building, and may I add that I don't think, although I could be wrong that a cannon ball that was a shrapnell round(hollow filled with not High explosve, but just the propellant black powder) would be unlikely to do much to a building.

Lets also hope that it's worth it to hide your line infantry behind a wall : right now, it makes it maybe a bit more protected, but since only the front row will fire, it's quite worthless.

Originally Posted by SirChandelstroy

A new cover system that completely divides up the map into heavy cover, light cover and no cover would be good. (Bit like COH)

No. The way it works at the moment is brilliant, bullets are individual objects in the physics engine afaik and hence won't go through solid objects, like a tree. Rather than dumb it down leave it be for those who want to find new creative ways of using cover.

Nah, I like ETW's cover system, it just needed refined.

Walls for example. My infantry can hide behind it (after standing stupidly for 10 seconds before going into cover thus taking casualties) which vastly reduces casualty rates. However, the trade off in terms of fire power is just pointless, especially if you have researched Fire By Rank as only rank 1 fires. That said, its damn useful if you're outnumbered and they don't mind standing there while getting shot apart.

Buildings. Oh buildings. They're a good idea as obviously people did garrison buildings for cover etc. However, as someone said, they just don't provide enough fire power output to justify it. Some buildings have one window on some sides which is just ridiculous given a musket reload time. Also, I believe the artillery destroys them far too easily and they're too easy to 'flush-out'.

I remember in the tutorial it talked about putting infantry behind broken down trees. I have never done this ever since the tutorial so I don't know if it works well.

Basically, just refine the system. It works well enough.

Regards,
The Gallant Forty-Twa

What I would really like to see, and I think everyone can agree on this, is fire damage. With the purported terrain deformation: Would it not be conceivable to have mass loads of flaming carcass shot do a bit more than bounce off the rooves of wooden buildings?

In ETW: An infantryman can run inside a nice wooden structure, safe in the knowledge that it will protect him from the raining flames and exploding shrapnel of the ordinance above him.