I should just chime in unhelpfully and say indirect mortar fire isn't nessecerily Epic indirect. After all tanks can fire indirect as so successully demonstrated on the golan hieghts by the Isreals (before they just took it). In Epic its the most common way of using the weapon tactically - is it used to engage targets you can see, or does it use whatver methods to engage unseen targets?
Here it is certainly lobbing shells into trenches, but still direct firing onto them as it were.
So it could be either
The only problem of indirect I can see is sitting there for a turn preping a close in garrisson, moving up turn 2 and assaulting turn 3, but is that too bad? If they were independant formations they would be cheerfully shelling stuff turn 3 after a turn 2 assault, but they are part of the infantry formations.
I think if they don't typically end up sitting around with nothing to do but shell they would be fine would indirect. If you can get tactics that allow them to be static after use then indirect might be to much.
_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x
