Two question, Destroyed units and NM, and railguns?

[AshesFall]

Let's say the Rus destroys a proud prussian corps with his low cunning. Does the destruction of the corps impact prussian NM negatively, and Russian NM positively? Or just one or the other?

I checked the Railgun I proudly toted around as an actual artillery unit and realized that it cannot upgrade heavy arty tech, nor does it have any effect whatsoever on the ray shield trenches of the french. So, what do these things do? How do I use them, and in what role are they useful at all?

[Strategiclayabout]

Hi AshesFall ,

- If a prussian corps is destroyed by a russian corps I think it's:

* Prussia will take a NM hit for each prussian step lost in the attack.

* Russia will take a NM hit for each russian step lost in the attack.

* Russia will gain a NM bonus if the prussian corps was in low supply (below 5).

(bonus is the unit base buying value in MPPs)

- Rail Guns are mainly used to kill supply/MPPs on a tile but they have several interesting stats:

* 12 action points (only on rail) ! That means you can move all along one front easily

* 3 strike range meaning infantry can't spot them from the front line

* 5 max shells, only half heavy arty but it's still far more strikes than a bomber

* 2 strategic attack, x5 shells you have good chances to get a 0 supply tile in one turn

(shells can't be intercepted by fighters or attacked by anti-air units)

* 5% demoralization, x5 shells just before using heavy arty can hit a unit hard

Hope it's more clear now ^^ .

[Bill101]

Strategiclayabout has answered pretty much everything, and I'll just add that Railguns are useful either to target enemy resources, thus reducing their supply and/or income, and secondly, to reduce the effectiveness of targeted units.

They do not de-entrench the target, and will only cause infrequent casualties, but adding their fire to that of regular Heavy Artillery will increase the chances of your attacks succeeding.

[Sapare]

My question is. Why the NM boon if enemy unit is in low supply? I don't really understand the logical reasoning. I get the idea of NM for destroying a unit(like ships) but why bind it to supply?

[Strategiclayabout]

Hi Sapare ,

- When an unit is in low supply it usually means it is more or less encircled or far behind enemy lines/inside enemy territory. Then most of the men and equipment can't be retrieved when unit cohesion/command structure collapses (lack of transport/way out). So the NM bonus pictures some kind of propaganda showing prisoners and equipment captured/destroyed.

- On the other hand, when an unit is destroyed in high supply, it means most of wounded can be/have been evacuated, only few prisoners were taken and most surviving men were able to get back to friendly lines, often as working units (regiments, companies...) able to fight again after a short time of rest/reorganization.

[Bill101]

Strategiclayabout has explained it perfectly!

Essentially, destroying enemy units in low supply is akin to winning the sort of victories that propaganda can be made of. Thus boosting morale on the home front.

[Sapare]

Strategiclayabout has explained it perfectly!

Essentially, destroying enemy units in low supply is akin to winning the sort of victories that propaganda can be made of. Thus boosting morale on the home front.

I say this isnt a bad addition overall, though there are some logicly questionable things with this.

For example, I had a russian HQ and 3 corps which got cut off in Austrian territory, they dug themself in by a town and obviously still got killed over the next few turns. But just becase how stircly this moral gain is tied to moral this wouldnt give the CP player any moral boons, which was a bit silly considering they had still managed to cut off my units and "capture" them. I think this rule should be expanded to count in any units disconected to the capital in every way(ports counting as conections)