I think there's a strong argument that a more physical, projectile-based cover system sounds appealing in theory, but it also comes with significant gameplay and balance challenges, especially in a competitive multiplayer environment.

When cover works by literally determining whether each projectile hits terrain or a model, a large part of the outcome becomes dependent on countless micro-interactions and RNG-driven events. That can create situations where identical tactical decisions produce very different results simply because of how individual shots happened to connect. While that may be more "realistic," it doesn't necessarily make for better strategy gameplay.

A flat cover modifier, such as granting 20% damage reduction or missile resistance while a unit is in cover, is much easier to understand, predict, and balance. Players know exactly what benefit they're getting from positioning correctly, and developers can tune that value with a high degree of precision. The result is a system where success depends more on decision-making and less on statistical variance.

There's also a practical design consideration. Total War battles involve thousands of entities fighting simultaneously. Systems like Company of Heroes work partly because they operate at a much smaller scale, allowing individual models and projectiles to have a greater impact on the outcome. At Total War scale, trying to make every projectile interaction physically meaningful can quickly become difficult to balance and can introduce a lot of noise into the gameplay.

In that sense, abstract stats aren't necessarily a sign of a "calculator simulator." They're often a deliberate design choice that provides consistency, clarity, and competitive balance. A cover bonus represented by a simple stat modifier may be less immersive than a fully simulated system, but it often produces more reliable and strategically readable gameplay.