Buildings on a hill.

[Saxonian]

In the buildings FAQ, it says that it is possible to place a village on a hill.
The only benefit I can see in this is in an assault, for the possible dice additions to the defender.

This begs the question....in an assault, would the defenders be considered "uphill"?
And if so, how would this affect the number of combat dice the defender gets?
Is it +2 in total, or +2 against each attacking unit?

[SirGarnet]

Being uphill gives a dice bonus in close combat. The building rules (and their restatement in the FAQ) fix a set number of dice for each unit in close combat and one specific modifer for rear support - the other dice count modifiers and the to-hit rules don't apply.

This is a logical approach since troops defending a BUA lose the benefits of being formed up in fighting formation and flexibility of minor tactical movement that can be used to advantage with a gentle hill slope.

Note also that assaulting Field Fortifications (other than from the rear) is treated like assaulting buildings plus the rules expressly give the defenders the Uphill bonus. Page 78rh.

[Saxonian]

That's what I thought.
The only reason I asked is because the FAQ specifically states that you can put the village on a hill, and I've been trying to think of a reason why you would choose to do so.
It seems much more sensible to put the building elsewhere, so you can use the hill for its inherent benefits.
Though I suppose you might move a village onto a hill to mess with your opponents plans. Can't think of any other reason.

[SirGarnet]

Maybe anchor your position on the village on the hill, with troops outside getting uphill advantage.

[hazelbark]

Lots of historical examples with buildings on a hill.

Brienne I think in 1814. The Prussians were anchored on a chateau on a hill then Ney led some YG to take it.

[Saxonian]

All good points, but given the relative size of terrain pieces, there would not be much room outside for many more troops.
Though that may just be something to do with the terrain we use!
Small hills and big villages.

[KendallB]

That's what I thought.
The only reason I asked is because the FAQ specifically states that you can put the village on a hill, and I've been trying to think of a reason why you would choose to do so.
It seems much more sensible to put the building elsewhere, so you can use the hill for its inherent benefits.
Though I suppose you might move a village onto a hill to mess with your opponents plans. Can't think of any other reason.

I have been the attacker in France & Central Europe terrain and, as I had lots of cavalry, I wanted more open terrain. I superimposed the compulsory building on the compulsory gentle hill so that there would be less table area taken up by terrain.

[Philip]

A building on a steep hill would be very difficult to assault.

[deadtorius]

Probably best to ignore that one then.