Height advantages for infantry?

[FroBodine]

Does infantry on a hill get any kind of offensive and/or defensive bonus when attacking then enemy downhill from them, or when the enemy tries to attack uphill at them?

Thank you!

[edit] well, this was answered in another thread. I just put this here in its own thread because I didn't want the question to get lost in the first thread I posted it in, which was not related to height or hills at all.

Anyway, I hear yes, but I would like to know exactly what the bonuses are to being on a hill, and the detriments to being at lower elevation when attacking/defending.

Thanks!

[zakblood]

depends on units involved and height of hill, plus other terrain in use as well, but can show a picture as a guide for better explanation maybe



as you can clearly see the formula is quite complex and almost everything it taken into account regarding the odds v's results, have or haven't moved, distance to HQ, supply, height, terrain, morale, guns used, formation and facing, stance etc etc

[zakblood]

2

[zakblood]

3

[zakblood]

while both these units are on the same level of a hill, lv 2 if memory serves me correct,so neither gets a bonus and it's not shown as both on same level counts as flat / level ground etc so neither gets a bonus for the hight so counts and is shown as 0, but if one was higher then the combat odd's would have been shown for the hight % bonus in the results, + for attacker and - for the defender etc, hope that helps?

Erik would do a better job of explaining it better than i can, so he may or will chip in when he see's the thread tbh, as mines how i understand it, so may not be fully 100% correct so will or could be corrected later if any of it is wrong

[FroBodine]

Thank you, Zak. There sure a lot of modifiers to combat. I did not see anything about height advantage/disadvantage in these screenshots, though.

Also - why was 28 damage removed in the "Attacker spent movement points (0/29)" rows, when it seems that they did not actually spend any movement points because it says 0/29.

[edit] I put in my response before you added your last note about height modifiers being added if there was a reason for it.

[zakblood]

height advantage/disadvantage to be shown would have taken a few more moves in a game to have got to the correct picture to be taken, but can do it, just takes long than the few mins i took, spent movement points = ihad spent them all getting to where i took the shot, that's why it shown none left tbh

i moved the infantry, the cav unit was the other side and hadn't moved...

seems we both edited at the same time them, i keep beingtold not to edit and make new threads as it's confusing to see bits added all the time once you think it's been read and added once, i keep forgetting and still edit a lot, spelling most of the time [:D][;)]

[FroBodine]

Ok, so if one of the units moved, it still shows 0/29 movement points expended for both units in the details. Is this a bug, then?

[zakblood]

no pic one and 2 is same one but stretched over another page so couldn't get it in one screenshot, the 3rd is the cav report only, so no bug and is correct

so i just cut and pasted it wrong as there's only one 0/29 in the correct picture, my mistake.

i'm old and it's getting near my bed time[:D][;)]

[gwgardner]

Just one historical note: Something I recently read, in 'Johnny Reb and Billy Yank' the author, who was a private in a Virgina Regiment, stated that in his experience there was no offensive height advantage, rather it was a disadvantage. He described one of his early battles, at Blackburn's Ford, where the Union forces were on a bluff above the creek, the Confs on the lower ground across the creek. He said all during the battle the Union forces consistently aimed too high, both artillery and infantry.

[Erik Rutins]

I suspect that was also somewhat related to the inexperience of the troops. At Gettysburg, for example, it was certainly an advantage.

[FroBodine]

I am still confused on why there is a movement penalty if it shows 0/29 in the attacker moved line. Doesn't that mean 0 moves out of 29 possible moves? Or does that mean something else, and if so, what does it mean, and where does it show the unit actually moved to get the -28 penalty?

Does anyone know the definitive answer to this, please?

[Gil R.]

Eric will soon wander back into the forum and be able to answer. Anything involving calculations is his area, and I'll probably muck up my explanation.

[FroBodine]

Ok, I hope so. He already wandered in here and responded to another post after mine, but not mine. Hopefully he will see it. Thanks!

[Gil R.]

He'll be back. We haven't spoken in a few hours, but my guess is that he's dealing with technical stuff. The first few days of release are always devoted largely to helping people with system-specific problems to get their games to run.

[Duck Doc]

Remember "Aim low, Boys" in Sid's Gettysburg. It was difficult for troops trained or not to aim low enough from heights to hit a target. Not that it significantly negated the defensive advantage of height. Commanding terrain was an artillery commander's prize however. Any attempt to simulate ACW tactics must allow the player to experience the advantage of terrain elevation. Hope this game does.

Enjoyed your twitch presentation a lot.

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

I suspect that was also somewhat related to the inexperience of the troops. At Gettysburg, for example, it was certainly an advantage.

[Ricomise]

Jglazir:

The way I read that modifier is that the number to the left of the slash is the number of movement points left unexpended by the unit before the combat phase began. In this case the unit spent all 28 movement points,thus had 0 left when combat began, therefore t h e large negative modifier to the unit's fire attack. Artillery has an even larger penalty to simulate the limbering/unlimbering process.

[zakblood]

for me if you have moved a bit, you are slightly ready for combat, if you have moved a lot, and used all your MP your less prepared for combat, i think it means, it's always better to have moved a little imo to get really good results or not at all where and if possible

[FroBodine]

That makes sense, Ricomise. That's probably how that modifier should be read.

Zak - yep, I understand the basics behind moving and having reduced combat effectiveness. I just wanted to understand exactly what those numbers meant.

Ok - back to the game. Well, after I finish this silly part of my day called my job.

[ericbabe]

Yes, 0/29 means 0 moves remaining out of a possible 29. The ratio here is important, so a unit with 1/4 moves remaining is in better shape when firing than a unit with 1/29. The former has 25% of its movement left which translates into more time for firing while standing still.


With regard to heights, I believe there is no firing modifier for height differentials. This may seem surprising, but recall that our heights represent significant elevation -- 50' or more per height differential. That's a slope of about 1:3 or more. From everything I've read, infantry seem to have had a harder time when firing at angles like this. Regiments were often organized in depth and when firing at a target if your range was a little bit off you still might hit someone behind your target. But when firing at an angle, the shot instead goes into the ground. There are some obvious advantages for firing when holding heights, since shooters at a height may have some cover of their lower body and looking into the sky may be more difficult than looking into the ground, and so forth. We decided just to have these advantages and disadvantages cancel each other and to give no modifier overall. I note that many classic war-games at this scale for this period also do not give fire modifiers for height differentials. (I'm thinking of Napoleon's Battles and of the many Richard Berg series in particular.)

For artillery, the problem of firing down from a height was even more severe than with infantry. Artillery shot tended to skip over the surface of the ground like a pebble skipping over the surface of a pond. When firing down from a height at closer ranges, artillery shot instead was likely to sink into the ground rather than skip, and so an argument might be made that at some closer ranges artillery might actually have penalties when firing from a height. Artillery manuals talk about finding high elevations when deploying the guns, but in those manuals the high points are more likely local elevation features -- little berms and mounds that are more like 10' above the surrounding elevation. There are significant advantages for placing artillery on proper 50' heights -- line of sight, the ability to shoot over friendly units, longer range for artillery. But I don't think a significant bonus to damage would be justified.

There should be significant charge penalties when fighting melee against a unit at a greater height. It should be much harder to capture/displace enemy artillery when charging up-slope against them. I can't remember what these modifiers are off-hand.