Commanded Shot

[marshalney2000]

Have we got these right under the rules as it seems to me:
- I have never seen them actually used alongside mounted to provide protection
- they are normally picked as a means of boosting the number of battle groups in an army
- they normally wander around the flank areas like small bodies of snipers
- they seem to fight better than the supposed small numbers of troops they represent
- would larger bodies of troops count them as support.

Now I believe that the amendments recognised this a little by not letting them charge but I wonder if a better alternative would be to treat them more like regimental gun markers.

In essence the situation would be as follows:
If allowed in the army lists an eligible mounted unit it could pay to add a commanded shot marker.
This marker would reduce the movement of the unit but provide protection in eligible situations
The unit would have one dice of shooting at long range and two at short
If the cavalry unit was routed then the commanded shot marker would be removed.
The marker would not add to army size or unit breakpoint.

Just a thought for debate.
John

[peterrjohnston]

In my admittedly limited experience:

- I have never seen them actually used alongside mounted to provide protection

They work well in Early TYW Swedes alongside mounted, see also Mr Madaxeman's game report using Swedes at Warfare 2013. I believe Alasdair uses them the same way in Huguenots from a post he made here. The only time I moved them away from the mounted is to stop the tedious "lets see if I can squeeze a unit round your flank, rather than fighting like real men"

- they are normally picked as a means of boosting the number of battle groups in an army

You could say the same about dragoons and LH/LF. Admittedly with the Swedes being so expensive, it's useful to get them to a normal size BG count (12-14).

- they normally wander around the flank areas like small bodies of snipers

Like dragoons and LH/LF...

However, being only 2 bases, they are very fragile. In one game with Swedes I lost a BG on a death roll, a mounted unit routed as a result and 2 more units went disrupted, and a general died in the pursuit, which left a rather large hole on the flank. All for rolling 1 on a die...

- they seem to fight better than the supposed small numbers of troops they represent

I've no idea how they match historically.

Now I believe that the amendments recognised this a little by not letting them charge but I wonder if a better alternative would be to treat them more like regimental gun markers.

The Swedish commanded shot can also have regimental guns. How do you deal with this (I assume it's historically based)?

[Three]

Have we got these right under the rules as it seems to me:
- I have never seen them actually used alongside mounted to provide protection
John

Actually, you have I used them against you at Square Go (ETYW Swedes) when you used the Sudanese - my right flank, supporting a unit of Mounted Arquebusiers - both units got blown away by archers in short order

Don't necessarily disagree with the rest though

[spotteddog]

Outted!
HH

[marshalney2000]

Re Swedes, if they want to pay for another marker for regimental guns then see no reason why they should not. Dubious value in my opinion though.
John

[spotteddog]

Pay 34 points for 2 markers and no BG towards army your army count. No thanks! Who will defend the poor commanded shot from John's assassination attempt? Commanded shot have already been weakened significantly by rules changes - Mr Munro is attempting to deliver the coup de grace!
HH

[marshalney2000]

Firstly I made no mention of points values. This is always the last consideration.
Interestingly enough you are about the player most guilty of all the non historical abuses I mentioned.
There are however advantages to the suggestion in that the current rules only provide protection to adjacent mounted elements while in the new scenario the Market would provide protection to the whole unit. Used historically the commanded shot would provide a real benefit.
John

[madaxeman]

Have we got these right under the rules as it seems to me:
- I have never seen them actually used alongside mounted to provide protection
- they are normally picked as a means of boosting the number of battle groups in an army
- they normally wander around the flank areas like small bodies of snipers
- they seem to fight better than the supposed small numbers of troops they represent
- would larger bodies of troops count them as support.

Now I believe that the amendments recognised this a little by not letting them charge but I wonder if a better alternative would be to treat them more like regimental gun markers.

In essence the situation would be as follows:
If allowed in the army lists an eligible mounted unit it could pay to add a commanded shot marker.
This marker would reduce the movement of the unit but provide protection in eligible situations
The unit would have one dice of shooting at long range and two at short
If the cavalry unit was routed then the commanded shot marker would be removed.
The marker would not add to army size or unit breakpoint.

Just a thought for debate.
John

I seem to remember that the authors considered having integrated mounted and commanded shotte bodies at some point in the rules development, but decided against it.

Personally I
- always use them alongside mounted to provide protection, unless there is no-one to protect from in which case they tend to get left behind and are sort of wasted points
- don't pick them as a means of boosting the number of battle groups in an army, as they are just too expensive and are of limited use in anything other than their real role. When I use them I always seem to find that if the (usually average) horse they are protecting start to go down, you quickly find you've lost 4-5 units rather than 2-3, so this is a two-edged sword anyway.
- find that when used in the flank areas their shooting is sometimes useful, but as they are often shooting horse at long range they really need to have a reggie gun (and become wildly expensive) and/or to be combined with carbine horse to be properly effective
- think they do fight better than the supposed small numbers of troops they represent, but that's the synergy factor when used with horse
- find that 2-packs can't really provide (rear) support for anyone who's normally in a 6-pack anyway, and when combined with horse they are far better value placed in the line than standing behind it.

I also find that they are incredibly brittle in terms of morale if targeted by enemy shooting - one artillery hit is a CT with a -2. Ouch! This is the point that I'm not sure right now that on balance they are worth taking at all unless they are Superior.

I could maybe make an argument to not allow them to provide rear support - on the basis that they are fewer men than the bases represent, and they shouldn't be providing rear support anyway - but the rest I think may come from trying to use them in a gamey way, when using them properly (making 8-point-ish average unarmoured carbine horse into something that can stand up to 16-point Superior Cuirassiers) is actually pretty damned good.

[marshalney2000]

Tim, I think what I was proposing was actually making them better in their historical role in that the marker would provide protection to the whole unit and not adjacent bases. This would represent lots of groups of commanded shot interspersed amongst the unit. It would also retain a shooting component.
What it would remove are the gamey non historical elements. Interestingly Hunter who has been the main supporter of not changing them is the greatest proponent of using them in gamey ways such as lining up four groups side by side and advancing on a flank against a normal pike and shot unit. At long range they are shooting several dice against one unit without a -1 POA for being in a flank sector while the opponent at most is getting one die against each commanded shot group.
John

[kevinj]

A number of good points on both sides here. Yes, they do provide a cheap extra BG but they can also provide a cheap kill if you're not careful.

On the whole though, I like John's suggestion as it would remove the option for cheesy sniper squads, especially those Swedish ones with their regimental guns, and would ensure that they provide their historical function. If you want to utilise separate groups of musketeers there are already the options for detaching shot or creating a Forlorn Hope which do not confer any other benefits.

[madaxeman]

We've already had their ability to charge removed, so how about if they counted all of the "flank threat" minuses unless they were in contact with friendly mounted ...?

Would that fix almost all the real problems, but do so more simply?

[kevinj]

That would be a good change, but I do also like the idea of 1 commanded shot thing providing support to a whole mounted BG.

I'd also argue that a "mixed" BG should be able to move as mounted, maybe slower than an all horsed one, but definitely quicker than MF.

[ravenflight]

However, being only 2 bases, they are very fragile. In one game with Swedes I lost a BG on a death roll, a mounted unit routed as a result and 2 more units went disrupted, and a general died in the pursuit, which left a rather large hole on the flank. All for rolling 1 on a die...

Well, no, you rolled a 1 for a death roll, then rolled <7 for a rout roll, a further 2 <7's for disrupted, rolled less for rout than your opponent did for pursuit and then your opponent rolled a 10 on killing your general.

It's not like it all happened because of a 1. It all had the potential to happen because of a 1, but that's not the same thing.

[spotteddog]

i have very rarely used commanded shot up till the last couple of months where ive been trying out huguenots with lots of pistrol shooting horse (dont try it at home!). john has been using using armies with very few mounted - covenanters, royalists, later spanish, hapsburgs. loa and the like and tends not to use much mounted at all. my 4 commanded shot bgs have therefore been relegated to a support role as they'd just slow the Cuirassier attack and can't really snipe from the flanks with arquebus. so my experience of commanded shot is very limited, in fact i dont remember ever using them alongside horse.

In my most recent game against stewart 1 bg of commanded shot went down to artillery and took another 2 with it!

i have now moved on to later thirty years war german,

so - yes i think john might have something here proving my theory that even blind pig can snort up a truffle once in a while!

HH

[madaxeman]

That would be a good change, but I do also like the idea of 1 commanded shot thing providing support to a whole mounted BG.

That would however allow the "supported by shotte" mounted units to operate independently and whizz around the table with impunity to better class mounted. At the moment to get anywhere near enough support you need to use them in a chugging great wide line, which does have the added effect of making it an even more unwieldy and inherently defensive formation.

I'd also argue that a "mixed" BG should be able to move as mounted, maybe slower than an all horsed one, but definitely quicker than MF.[/quote]

Again maybe... but it does make it a more defensive formation by limiting it to the speed of foote.

[Vespasian28]

We've already had their ability to charge removed, so how about if they counted all of the "flank threat" minuses unless they were in contact with friendly mounted ...?

Would that fix almost all the real problems, but do so more simply?

Works for me.

The only time I end up with Commanded Shot operating independently from the horse is when they get left behind when the horse pursue, which is pretty rare for my Parliamentarians. It has been mentioned before as a proposed amendment that CS must deploy with mounted rather than wherever which is an excellent idea. The double edged sword department also means that the supported horse have a tricky decision if they feel the need to break off, leaving the CS to their fate.