Queries Arising from recent game Romans V Germans

We've just played a game 260AD approx. Romans V Germans which included difficult going and fortifications. The following points came up for discussion would be grateful for any comments.
1/ S units with short bow B firing at the units behind fortifications got the minimum 1 die which is the same as firing at foot in the open (the -2 has no effect in this case) and as there is no adj. to the defenders CT the foot derived no benefit from being behind fortifications. Do you think this is fair or should the die be reduced to nil (a bit harsh as they will now be 100% ineffective when firing) or should the defenders behind fortifications get say a +1 to their CT when short at by S or any other sugg.
2/A couple of LU of FP impetuous Germans in difficult terrain (wooded steep hill) that had been moving so disordered rallied and passed there DT to do an about face. The rules seem to allow this but baring in mind visibility only 1H should they be able to do so? or should there be a -1 adj. to the DT or do you think the rules ok as they are?
If able to about face in difficult going would this count as movement so become disordered.
3/We found it harder to counter charge with impetuous C class warband needing 5 or 6 or 6 if disordered or out of command than say a B class unit of javlinmen. With the term 'impetuous' you would have thought more likely to charge what do you think, do they deserve say a +1 to there DT to counter charge? They may be a case that they have to try and counter charge if charged.

1) we use a house rule where a "rounded 1 die" in shooting causes a maximum damage of a disorder (someone mentioned this in the forum and works ok).

2) count as movement, so the LU becomes disordered

3) again we use a house rule where the countercharge test is done only if the unit is disordered.