I don't think it should be an issue to display as yellow. Right now we have green for both heavy cover and garrison cover which are different modifiers.
True, but "in a building" vs "behind a wall" is much more readable and intuitive than "In a crater" vs "In a crater, but it's one the mapmaker placed", y'know? Doesn't "building" cover have a slightly different icon to "green" cover anyway, though?
Ideally i would say give a small green border for yellow light cover to signify that it provides some sort of suppression resistance.
Sure, that'd probably be enough, if it's actually possible to edit these sorts of UI elements. If we're going down that route I'd suggest the yellow shield, but with it being bisected diagonally, be used for "no suppression resistance" yellow cover. Having a gap in it would be a reasonable indicator that it's "worse" than regular yellow cover.
It would probably be cleaner to just have a different colour though.
Alternative just give it the grey colour. I still think light cover created by any explosive is too strong for how "passive" it is available. It's 0.50 RA and 0.50 suppression modifier AND 2.5 suppression recovery rate.
That's even WORSE, it's not recognisable as cover at all if it's using the "no cover" ui elements!
While at first i thought of simple removing any cover properties, i thought it would kill any viability of camouflage units late game.
I think a more "neutral" cover should be added with 0.75 RA, 1.00 suppression modifier and 1.5 suppression recovery would been better. Leaving light cover generation to either big ordnances (offmap, Avre/ST, Howitzers).
Probably a good idea, if this is within the scope of the Balance Team. It might be nice to do something sort of similar for player-built green cover too (if Mainlines keep their sandbags), as this would make map cover preferable to player-built cover.
I believe MGs should get +3 range when in cover
This would help stop A-move LMG blobs IMO
Would going from 45 range to 48 range really make all that much of a difference?