Question about attacking from height

[Beorn]

Page 47 of the manual says:
If the attacker is on a height and the defender is not:
Artillery causes -80% damage
Other units cause +10% damage

This has to be a misprint, doesn't it?

[Jordan]

Maybe it refers to the artillery not being able to decline the barrell or that the typical damage caused by a skipping shot is reduced (or non-existent) when firing from a height?

[Ralegh]

I don't think it is a misprint.

The technical term if I remember correctly is "grazing fire" - this is the idea that high powered munitions could do more damage if they spend more time between 2 feet and 5 feet from the ground. Firing from up on a height is "plunging fire" - it will come almost straight down and hurt less people.

In COG, artillery do less damage from up on a height - but they still hurt formations a lot, and they have better line of sight so you may be able to choose better targets. Its a trade off.

[Terminus]

You couldn't aim Napoleonic era artillery for plunging fire either, so shooting down from above would be less accurate. Now if only you could get grapeshot...[:)]

[Beorn]

Thanks! Shows what I know -- based on the ACW, I assumed artillery was frequently placed on the heights.

minus 80% -- WOW

[Queeg]

Artillery on heights had greater range but was less lethal. It was a tradeoff.

[sol_invictus]

Still seems like -80% is a bit extreme though. Maybe -60% would be a large enough penalty. I haven't fought a battle yet so I am just throwing out my uninformed opinion.

[Erik Rutins]

They are still relatively effective on heights - they get a better line of sight and you can place infantry in front of them and they can fire over, which is a pretty decent advantage.

[Naomi]

Let's experiment to prove -0.8 is not arbitrary.