Kensai wrote:You lost me in the separation between line units and support units. Although
this division exists, I wasn't aware it mattered if it was loose or attached, as you say. I always thought that the engine does this automatically, as well as
targeting the most opportune enemy. No need for extra thinking by the player here, albeit choosing the terrain and weather to do his fight.
I'll freely admit I've had very ambiguous results on this in EAW, though lots of loose artillery in an army definitely seems to do better than an extra corps. In CW2 it makes a much bigger difference due to the greater staying power of those large divisions packed to the brim with line units; they dissipate the hits better and stay in combat longer. I'm not so certain this is as crucial in EAW, given the much smaller number of elements in a corps and limited number of line elements which can be added.
The above, however, does not change my main concern and point of objection to your previous suggestions: placing artillery in the GHQ is not such a good idea if the entire GHQ is not engaging right from the start. Is this right or wrong? It was my understanding that the main advantage of the artillery is (1) not filling the line units quota and, most importantly, (2) firing first at range! If the GHQ as a stack in offensive is not engaging right from the start, then it means that its attached artillery is not engaging either, which is something not desirable.
The GHQ will almost always MSG if in offensive posture. To be clear, in EAW I tend to pack the armies full of guns, then I start adding them to the GHQ. I'd much rather have a three corps army with six or more loose batteries than a four corps army.
Thus I agree in your tactic of placing the artillery loose inside a GHQ (and not in a corps) but I am puzzled that you don't see that it should not matter at all, if the GHQ is not engaging (in offensive) at all. Engaging in a later round is of course possible, but why would I not want to open my battle with all the artillery I can possibly amass in my support frontage quota?
If you're attacking post-1914, you probably have multiple corps/armies and the GHQ all advancing into the same region. If you're defending, your opponent is probably hitting a region which he perceives as weak, and the GHQ will have to MSG. They do that better than armies, so I prefer to pack every excess gun I have into the GHQ.
All this, and guns do more damage per hit than line unit elements, so I generally try to recruit out all artillery if possible and as early as possible. I haven't done the calculations for EAW yet, but in CW2 a 3 division 8 battery corps is far, far more economical than a 5 division corps. Guns are remarkably cheap, use less replacements than line units, and pack way more punch. I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm just giving my philosophy as I understand the game, and I don't think there's any substitute to the liberal application of gratuitously excessive firepower.
