Questions on battles

[Yushal]

The quotations are from here: http://www.ageod.net/agewiki/Combat_Explained

When a column-stack or an army-stack is engaged in battle, other column-stacks (or the army stack) which are part of the same army and which are positioned in a region adjacent to the region where the battle takes place, may enter the battle and support their fellows.

What are these terms defined by? I assume an army stack is whatever stack is designated as an army? What exactly is a column-stack? Also, what does it mean for a column-stack to be a part of the same army?

Army HQs will never attack by themselves and always fight in support of another stack, if any is present.

What does this mean? Seems to say an army will never fight unless another stack initiates combat, but that can't be true, can it?

Also, for siege battles, are you supposed to put your occupying force on assault and then await a breach? Or should they be on attack or defense? Do breaches actually happen without forcing them via rail guns?

[gotrek]

Army HQs will never attack by themselves and always fight in support of another stack, if any is present.

This is the GHQ in EAW. for example hHndenburg on the CP eastern front. it prevents you from using the GHQ as an extra army since it can't attack on it's own but will help defend if near one of its related armies.
I hope I'm clear in my explanation.

Breaches happen over time, the bigger your guns the faster it will happen. I don't really think the posture changes that much.

[Kensai]

What are these terms defined by? I assume an army stack is whatever stack is designated as an army? What exactly is a column-stack? Also, what does it mean for a column-stack to be a part of the same army?

These are indeed generic names. In EAW, every corps-level formation and above will march to the sound of guns unless put on passive stance or selected not to attack while moving (only when active).

What does this mean? Seems to say an army will never fight unless another stack initiates combat, but that can't be true, can it?

I really don't understand this explanation either. In my experience all stacks fight if they have fighting units inside them.

Also, for siege battles, are you supposed to put your occupying force on assault and then await a breach? Or should they be on attack or defense? Do breaches actually happen without forcing them via rail guns?

You need to assault when you have already made the breaches (or you feel you can take them anyway). Breaches can happen without rail guns, sure. It will be harder though. Bring a lot of artillery and engineers. Generals that are also famous for their ability to add to the "siege score" will improve the chances of this happening.

Also, remember that a gargantuan force out of a besieged and unsupplied fortress/city might lead to its surrendering without even a bullet fired.

[arsan]

Hi!
The wiki is correct, but it can be confusing, as in EAW forces sizes have gone up in scale.
On EAW terms, what the wiki refers as an "army-stack" would be the GHQ and the "column-stacks" would be the armies attached to the GHQ.

On previous games you had Armies stacks and corps stacks attached to them and also independent forces not in the chain of command that will not march to the sound of the guns in support of adjacent friendly forces.

Now in EAW is GHQ with armies attached to them, and corps (with ** leaders) out of the chain of command but that will also march to the sound of the guns in support of adjacent friendly forces. And then you also have independent forces (with * leaders or leaderless) that will not support anybody or call for any support.

The GHQ will never initiate offensive combat if there is any other friendly unit on the region. The GHQ will defend normaly and support other friendly forces if the engage in combat.
But a GHQ without any other friendly force in the region will attack and deffend normaly as any army or corps.

Regards!

[Kensai]

This is the GHQ in EAW. for example hHndenburg on the CP eastern front. it prevents you from using the GHQ as an extra army since it can't attack on it's own but will help defend if near one of its related armies.

What do you mean it cannot attack? Have you tried to send the GHQ (old 8th Army) against the Russians (in offensive) and it did not engage? Did it fight with penalties or did it not move at all?

[Merlin]

The GHQ will certainly fight, but if there is another stack in the region it will act as a support unit. It's not going to hurt anything to put a corps in the GHQ for safety purposes, but it's far more effective as a giant artillery park. The exception is a lone GHQ with no other stacks in the region and no stacks MSGing into the region. The GHQ will fight normally then.

Anyone who's wondered why an army got beat to hell in a battle while the corps in the GHQ were unscathed has seen this in action.

[Kensai]

I don't quite understand what you mean here by "support unit". Let's say we have in a region a GHQ and two subordinate armies. In defense, they will all fight together. If they attack the nearby region, the only thing I am expecting is that the Armies commence the battle and the GHQ enters the second (or a later) round. In other words, they don't initiate battle, but they will be included in later rounds.

This can lead to unscathed corps (in a GHQ) as well, especially if the battle is over before the GHQ enters. Thus we reach what you describe, but for different reasons, Merlin. If this is the case, I think placing artillery in the GHQ is actually harming your chances as your artillery won't be fighting right from the start, weakening the enemy before the reserves arrive... I personally place relatively fast units in the GHQ and circle reserves with the subordinate armies.

So.. which is the case?

[Merlin]

I don't quite understand what you mean here by "support unit". Let's say we have in a region a GHQ and two subordinate armies. In defense, they will all fight together. If they attack the nearby region, the only thing I am expecting is that the Armies commence the battle and the GHQ enters the second (or a later) round. In other words, they don't initiate battle, but they will be included in later rounds.

This can lead to unscathed corps (in a GHQ) as well, especially if the battle is over before the GHQ enters. Thus we reach what you describe, but for different reasons, Merlin. If this is the case, I think placing artillery in the GHQ is actually harming your chances as your artillery won't be fighting right from the start, weakening the enemy before the reserves arrive... I personally place relatively fast units in the GHQ and circle reserves with the subordinate armies.

So.. which is the case?

This is partly based on experience from CW2 and partly from EAW. From what I have seen, armies in CW2 and GHQs in EAW do not like to fight, even on the defensive, if there are other containers (corps/armies) in the region. I have seen corps/armies, with good, active commanders on offensive posture and in the same region, absolutely decimated and forced to retreat before the army/GHQ with a good, active commander and offensive posture will engage or be engaged. What the army/GHQ in both games really seems to like doing is dumping all loose artillery into the support line, where they just blast away round after round at the largest thing on the field. It's murderously effective, far more so than integrated artillery will ever be, and in CW2 can crush even level 8 entrenchments if enough heavy guns are present.

In my experience, when the army/GHQ fights, it's because it happens to be alone in a region. The moment another force MSGs into the region, it tends to become the new target immediately.

[Kensai]

I really don't understand this mechanism of "dumping all loose artillery into the support line". Where is this documented? I appreciate your personal experience, but if this is true, it will need further clarification from the developers. I have never come across information that the GHQ will be more efficient as it will provide its artillery firepower. If it engages, it will probably engage all together when the dice roll for its engagement is successful. There should be no higher probability or anything similar if has artillery instead of, say, infantry divisions. This artillery dumping mechanism is unknown to me.

This is important to clarify because if it works as you describe, it is a gamechanger on how to use artillery, but if not, then it is the other way around. Given the low probability of GHQ engaging, one should make sure it is made of the lowest quality troops (reserves) or at least fast disrupting troops (to give the extra kick when the battle is almost decided). But a player would want his artillery to be fighting from the start, thus placing the arty in GHQ when on attack is madness, in this interpretation!

You would want your artillery to open your battles all the times. And as rounds pass and your forward armies get tired, hope that the GHQ engages and breaks the standstill with fresh troops, albeit reserves.

[Merlin]

I really don't understand this mechanism of "dumping all loose artillery into the support line". Where is this documented? I appreciate your personal experience, but if this is true, it will need further clarification from the developers. I have never come across information that the GHQ will be more efficient as it will provide its artillery firepower. If it engages, it will probably engage all together when the dice roll for its engagement is successful. There should be no higher probability or anything similar if has artillery instead of, say, infantry divisions. This artillery dumping mechanism is unknown to me.

This is important to clarify because if it works as you describe, it is a gamechanger on how to use artillery, but if not, then it is the other way around. Given the low probability of GHQ engaging, one should make sure it is made of the lowest quality troops (reserves) or at least fast disrupting troops (to give the extra kick when the battle is almost decided). But a player would want his artillery to be fighting from the start, thus placing the arty in GHQ when on attack is madness, in this interpretation!

You would want your artillery to open your battles all the times. And as rounds pass and your forward armies get tired, hope that the GHQ engages and breaks the standstill with fresh troops, albeit reserves.

Here's my understanding of how battles work:

Line units like infantry and cavalry seek out other line units to target, while artillery, engineers, etc. go into the support line (though really only artillery fights unless everything else got wiped out). So divisions target divisions, and corps are basically just big divisions. Loose artillery is still going to end up in the support line, up to the limit governed by frontage/weather/terrain, etc. Since an army is really just a stack of corps and other loose units without (ideally) a CP penalty, those units end up in the line or in support, depending on what they are. Artillery in a corps will fire at the target of the corps. Loose artillery will target the most visible enemy unit on the field. So, if you have 4 batteries in a corps, they won't spread their fire as much. It's not some huge game-changing thing, but if you try it, you will notice your forces are taking fewer casualties when attacking and generally cause more when defending than if you put all your guns in the corps themselves.

If you somehow manage to bring so many heavy guns that you fill the entire support frontage, you'll do a lot more damage than you would otherwise anticipate. I haven't gotten to the late war battles in EAW yet, but it definitely works in CW2, where a dozen or so 20lb. batteries and the same number of 10lb. batteries can force a retreat from even level 8 entrenchments with sometimes as little as 2:1 casualties. With fewer, smaller guns mostly concentrated in the divisions, you'll normally see 4:1 or worse.

[Kensai]

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.

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.

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?

[Merlin]

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.

[Kensai]

I agree to your strategy, it is technically sound as I understand it.
But all I really wanted is see this written (my emphasis):

... I prefer to pack every excess gun I have into the GHQ.

Now it makes sense for me. Because if by any chance in the offensive you don't get your GHQ engage from the first round, you essentially lose the extra artillery firepower. Thus, a very meticulous player will (1) make sure his subordinate armies are up to the max in CP with all important units, including artillery and (2) if he is diligent enough to calculate line/support quotas and see the extra artillery in the armies not making a difference, hope for a rotation next round: in that case it makes sense to put the EXCESS artillery in the GHQ. But the key word for me is that: excess!

[Merlin]

Ah, gotta love the internet.

I'm a total gun whore. Even as the CSA in CW2, I still manage to recruit out the 10lb. and 20lb. battery pools. :cannon: <- We need this smiley!