ORIGINAL: FaneFlugt
Hmmm... Having an HQ behind the front and adding its artillery as "direct fire" to the hex that is being attacked? Isnt that a bit weird? How does that even work? If the HQ was commited to the attack itself I might accept the direct fire thinghy.. but not when the unit is behind the front.
The HQ icon acts as an artillery icon and so is perfectly effective at range.
Ill admit that as a old infantryman I am not an expert on artillery. But I would bet that shooting an artillery Shell directly is not that effective and very dangerous for the artillery.
Maybe the term directly dosent really signify "directly" ... ?!? If that makes sense.
Direct vs. Indirect fire just reflects two different ways TOAW deals with artillery fire in combat. If it's direct fire then as far as I can tell it's treated no differently than so many rifles or machine guns. If it's indirect then special rules come in to play, damage is dealt differently and there's a % chance of each defending unit reverting to a "mobile" status.