Artillery elements in Divisions

[Paul Roberts]

I'd like to ask for some clarifications about how many artillery elements can effectively work inside of a division.

1) I've heard that in AACW the limit is four, and that the extra artillery won't do much good. Is that true in NCP too?

2) Are there similar limits on the effective number of any other element types in Divisions (cavalry, for instance)?

3) In the Prussian campaign (and perhaps elsewhere) I notice that the Coalition sometimes has six or even eight artillery elements in Divisions. Is this hurting their effectiveness?

4) Does the AI know about this limit, and does it adjust accordingly?

Thanks!

[Nikel]

If you allow me to use your thread , I have another question about artillery and cavalry.

What is the difference in a corps, in putting an artillery element inside one of the corps division or outside in the corps stack, and the same with cavalry.

So when a corps enters in battle, all the corps is fighting at the same time and so there is no difference? Or perhaps one of the divisions is fighting first and so is a good idea to have artillery (and cavalry) included in every division?

[FM WarB]

I read the manual and judge based on what it says. I keep whichever element type is fastest predominant in divisions. I don't like having cav in inf divisions, unless they are in separate advance guard type roles. Believing artillery get more pops at corps level, I like 12 pounders there, smaller calibers with infantry divisions.
Even with coalition armies I try to ape the classic Frernch Corps structure, as its my guess the game system will reward that.

[Nikel]

OK, this is what can be read in the manual:

Commander’s Note: Allocating support units based on their Command Point costs is not as straight-forward as
simply loading up Leaders with as many CPs worth of units as they can handle. For example, artillery batteries can
be assigned internally to Divisions (which reduces the overall CP cost to the Force) or they can be assigned to
Corps/Army HQs. The difference comes in how the artillery is used in combat. When assigned to a Division,
artillery fires on enemy units directly engaged with elements from that Division. When assigned to a
Corps/Army HQ, artillery fires on the largest enemy unit in range.


Though I still do not know what is better (in cases where there is no benefit in CP cost, of course)

So here is an explanation for artillery, but for cavalry?

I think I know the benefits of independent cavalry regiments or even divisions, after your thread about that FM WarB, and arsan's answer. In fact my success in my last PW campaign I think it was due to that, separating cavalry elements as independent forces.

But if you decide to have a cavalry regiment in a corps, is it better inside a division or outside? The effect is similar to what is said related to artillery?

[aryaman]

Hi
Regarding arty, it is better to have it at corps level, especially long range artillery, because it starts firing at its maximum range, while inside a division it starts firing at close range, so i put as much artillery batteries as I coud at corps level.
Regarding cavalry, I think it is not adviceable to have single regiments, but cavalry divisions, that are useful charging and pursuing defeated enemies. Single elements, either infantry or cavalry, tend to be targetted and destroyed in high proportions.

[Pocus]

For (1) you are wrong Aryaman, the artillery will still be able to fire at his full range.

For (2) I tend to agree with you.

[Paul Roberts]

Thanks, Pocus.

What about the four-element limit? (See original post.)

[Rafiki]

That has to do with frontage, IIRC; a maximum of 4 artillery elements get to fire at the same time in support of the unit they are in.

(Disclaimer: Have to admit I'm far from being very sure on this)

[Pocus]

This is not an hard rule though, it depends of the terrain, the presence of a general, the weather, the speed of artillery.

[FM WarB]

I just reread the updates read me. Units, not just Forces now move at the speed of their slowest element. So combined arms usage is a matter of combat effectiveness and CP management.