Spreading Army in Detachments vs Concentrating in Single HQ Stack

[Drakken]

What are the advantages of spreading Corps into two or more detachments versus keeping them concentrated in a single stack? Why make detachments of a single or two Corps, when I can just concentrate them in a single Army stack and just steamroll forward toward the main objective, sacrificing flexibility in favour of overwhelming force?

I see it often over maps on AARs, but aside of covering more ground and frontage in trench warfare (which to my mind is the sole benefit) doesn't it open the possibility of being destroyed in detail, one by one, against a single Army stack? I see no benefit in risking getting one or two Corps destroyed against a super HQ stack just to cover a small town or a railway one of two regions away.

[wodin]

If you dont spread out detachments then they will just go passed you. Also one stack makes no difference cos if they bump into a detachment and its HQ has a fair few corps in reserve then they come into play. So having detachments covering ground with units in reserve in the HQ is far better than having a big stack with massive gaps for the enemy to go through.

[Drakken]

If you dont spread out detachments then they will just go passed you. Also one stack makes no difference cos if they bump into a detachment and its HQ has a fair few corps in reserve then they come into play. So having detachments covering ground with units in reserve in the HQ is far better than having a big stack with massive gaps for the enemy to go through.

Are both HQ and other detachments of the same army "marching to the sound of guns"?

[NefariousKoel]

I try to keep at least 2 corps in each detachment/army and pack the reserve as full as I can without violating that. At least, I've been doing that in the early game. The 2 corps will make sure the fight lasts long enough to get your reserves into any detachment's location if the enemy strikes at one. So.. even the most basic Army setup - 2 corps and 2 more in reserve.. that gives you 4 corps for a fight.

If you spread out detachments nearby, it'll definitely help them from cutting your supply lines and getting by you. Mixed with turning interception on, your 2+ corps containers can protect a large amount of space if need be.

It's all about how much ground you need to hold. On the offensive, a little more concentration doesn't hurt if you are numerically superior. An example.. 3 total containers per army on defense and just 2 for leapfrogging when going on offense seems to be a sweet spot for me.

[Drakken]

If you dont spread out detachments then they will just go passed you. Also one stack makes no difference cos if they bump into a detachment and its HQ has a fair few corps in reserve then they come into play. So having detachments covering ground with units in reserve in the HQ is far better than having a big stack with massive gaps for the enemy to go through.

Also, does it mean I shouldn't have any Corps in my HQ stack unless they are support units, keep the Corps I want to use in support of my detachments in the HQ Reserves, and put the rest in separate Detachments?

[NefariousKoel]

Also, does it mean I shouldn't have any Corps in my HQ stack unless they are support units, keep the Corps I want to use in support of my detachments in the HQ Reserves, and put the rest in separate Detachments?

It's not how I use it. I'd be too afraid of it getting caught without much in combat units those first two crucial rounds.

Use the Army itself as another 'detachment'. Just keep it in the relative middle of the others so it's within support range (top right # on the HQ counter).

The Army container is just a detachment that happens to control the Reserve box, houses your HQ staff and General, if any. I could see them being placed a hex back to both block a possible breakthrough and as an extra mobile defense for the non-reserve units in it.

[Jorrig]

Defending I'd always try to cover all ground on the front. You have a big advantage as defender, more and more the longer the war lasts. Even if the enemy is superior in numbers, you could inflict some damage on him before you retreat. I always try to make sure the enemy doesn't get that bonus for being far superior. But then you can still fight 1-2 battles and retreat and probably not lose too much. The loss is far greater if the enemy can occupy your provinces with some cavalry corps. On the West front each province costs 1 NW, I wouldn't want to give that away without making the enemy pay for it!

[Fastsnake]

Personnaly, I very scarcely use detachments and I concentrate my forces in big HQ, and there are no holes in the whole Western front (as France, with UK on my side of course).
If the ennemy launch a grand offensive, and that you must battle in two fronts at the same time, the reserves on the HQ will be useless and they'll break through your lines, straight to Paris.

[Drakken]

Personnaly, I very scarcely use detachments and I concentrate my forces in big HQ, and there are no holes in the whole Western front (as France, with UK on my side of course).
If the ennemy launch a grand offensive, and that you must battle in two fronts at the same time, the reserves on the HQ will be useless and they'll break through your lines, straight to Paris.

That may be good for the Western Front because of cramped space, but on the Eastern front space is just too wide, and thus frontage is necessary.

And that is for Maneuver warfare. When Trench warfare kicks in, you will need to occupy every hole on the front to prevent any Schwerpunkt from being exploited and there are so much HQs you may use to do so.