Commanded Shot

[timmy1]

Kevin

Interesting but I think rather than shooting/impact changes, just make it that the mounted BG they are with counts the listed bonus for protection. Also remember that Salvo and Superior CS cost more than the points listed.

[kevinj]

That's an alternative suggestion, but it would need to be worked through as to how it works for DH/Cavaliers as opposed to Horse.

Salvo Commanded shot is just wrong in my opinion, and in any case becomes obsolete if we go down the marker route. In my opinion if a mounted BG needs stiffening it shouldn't be rated as Superior.

[timmy1]

Agreed.

[nikgaukroger]

One marker may be added to a BG of Average or Poor Horse, Determined Horse or Cavaliers.

I'm not sure we can really leave out Superior (or indeed Elite) from this as commanded shot were certainly used alongside troops who can plausibly classed this way - although I would guess that with good mounted you get declining returns in relative effectiveness from the shot.

A BG with Commanded Shot attached moves at the slower rate of LF or Horse. Simple/Complex moves are as defined for Horse.

I think it really has to be MF move and not LF, otherwise the impact is a bit marginal - I'd want the choice for the player when moving to be a quite obvious one with significant implications.

As a starting point, one base of Commanded Shot currently costs 8 points Average, 6 points Poor. That might be more than the benefits are worth, especially given the limitations that come with it. But in any case I think it would be best to agree the effects and then assign a cost.

Agreed. Points will be the last thing - we need to get the mechanism sorted first.

[nikgaukroger]

Gave this a bit of thought whist driving to Carlisle today - nothing like a 300+ mile drive to give you thinking time

One conclusion I came to was that the PoA mechanism of commanded shot seems to work quite well (I can't recall anyone saying it was broken) and it is other issues with the current implementation that are the things that cause issues.

The PoA mechanism also seems to do quite well when you look at the historical record - or at least what I can glean from it. This is rather biased towards Gustav Adolf's army, but then again it is the iconic one for commanded shot I think.

The shot seem to have been most effective when used against the Poles (although clever use of terrain seems to have helped here), with lesser but still useful effect against Imperial horse in Germany up to Breitenfeld, and then declining usefulness after that (e.g. at Lutzen Bernhard's wing seems to have detached it's shot to do other things and didn't suffer too much because of it - although we need to be careful as this was an especially confused battle).

I'd be tempted to keep the current PoA mechanism as an abstraction of the commanded shot's shooting as it probably gets about the right result.

So I think I'd suggest that commanded shot are bought on a per BG basis (at X points) and are represented by a marker attached to the BG - which mounted can get them is detailed for each list so that they can only be bought for the type of troops that had them historically.

Impact and Melee PoA + as currently stated in the rules.

However, I'd also add that if the BG with the commanded shot are = PoA (or better?) they get an extra dice at Impact in the same way that Regimental Guns work.

Mounted BG moves at MF rate. It can voluntarily "discard" its commanded shot at any time and move its normal move rate, in which case the marker is removed and the BG cannot gain the benefits for the rest of the game. The marker (and benefits) are also removed if the BG charges, pursues, or breaks.

I would not bother giving any shooting to the BG with commanded shot - its all abstracted into the melee PoA/dice.

[ravenflight]

It seems to be getting a little complex Nik, especially the POA= or better get an extra dice bit. I can see this being forgotten/causing problems. Perhaps (for simplicity) a BG with commanded shot just get a +POA. So, if they are overall - they go 0. If they are overall = they go + if they are overall + they go ++. Considering that they don't gain ANY benefit if they charge, the BG causing the impact is going to know full well what they are going in for, and so can't really complain if they end up with a ++ against them.

If implemented, it would mean you'd just need to change the 'impact' and leave the melee alone (as it's what is already there anyway), and you don't need multiple rules changes.

Thoughts?

[ravenflight]

So I think I'd suggest that commanded shot are bought on a per BG basis (at X points) and are represented by a marker attached to the BG - which mounted can get them is detailed for each list so that they can only be bought for the type of troops that had them historically.

This could cause confusion. I must admit I'm not very knowledgeable on the armies with Commanded shot and only one army I've considered has it, and I don't recall the list saying 'x troops can use commanded shot'.

[nikgaukroger]

It seems to be getting a little complex Nik, especially the POA= or better get an extra dice bit. I can see this being forgotten/causing problems. Perhaps (for simplicity) a BG with commanded shot just get a +POA. So, if they are overall - they go 0. If they are overall = they go + if they are overall + they go ++. Considering that they don't gain ANY benefit if they charge, the BG causing the impact is going to know full well what they are going in for, and so can't really complain if they end up with a ++ against them.

If implemented, it would mean you'd just need to change the 'impact' and leave the melee alone (as it's what is already there anyway), and you don't need multiple rules changes.

Thoughts?

A straight + PoA was considered in the original writing/play testing process IIRC and we rejected it then as giving too much benefit to those who were not disadvantaged in the combat - the view being that commanded shot are very much more a case of negating a disadvantage than getting an advantage.

My personal view has not changed on that and so I'd still be against this idea.

Can't say I think it'd be too difficult to remember about an extra dice if not disadvantaged, the marker is a good reminder in the same way that Regimental Guns are, but views on that most welcome (and remembering that this is just one suggestion on how to do it).

[nikgaukroger]

So I think I'd suggest that commanded shot are bought on a per BG basis (at X points) and are represented by a marker attached to the BG - which mounted can get them is detailed for each list so that they can only be bought for the type of troops that had them historically.

This could cause confusion. I must admit I'm not very knowledgeable on the armies with Commanded shot and only one army I've considered has it, and I don't recall the list saying 'x troops can use commanded shot'.

They don't, and this is why we end up with commanded shot being used with troops that they never supported historically.

I really can't see that by having an amendment to a list saying commanded shot can be added to <<troop name>> would cause confusion - it is a pretty straight forward amendment IMO.

[timmy1]

Nik

While not something I thought about initially, I can broadly see how this would work and willing to give it a go. Matches the historical record as I understand it.

Regards
Tim

[ravenflight]

They don't, and this is why we end up with commanded shot being used with troops that they never supported historically.

I really can't see that by having an amendment to a list saying commanded shot can be added to <<troop name>> would cause confusion - it is a pretty straight forward amendment IMO.

It won't be hard if you (or someone) are willing to make the list.

[nikgaukroger]

They don't, and this is why we end up with commanded shot being used with troops that they never supported historically.

I really can't see that by having an amendment to a list saying commanded shot can be added to <<troop name>> would cause confusion - it is a pretty straight forward amendment IMO.

It won't be hard if you (or someone) are willing to make the list.

If we were to go with this approach the update would include such a list

[benjones1211]

I Like the marker approach.

I would say the following

1) Move as LF, Commanded shot didn't seem to slow up the right wing at Lutzen much.
2) When fighting melee and Impact, negates one +
3) Lost if Charge, Pursue, Rout or move more than LF speed.
4) Shoots as a single musket shot, Swedes for an additional points cost can have it shoot as Regimental Gun
5) Can be Poor-Elite depending on the units it can be with
6) Army lists will specify which troop types they can be with, tended to be Front line Unarmoured/Armoured Pistol/Pistol

[nikgaukroger]

4) Shoots as a single musket shot, Swedes for an additional points cost can have it shoot as Regimental Gun

As, IIRC, the only time we have evidence for them having guns with the shot was Lutzen I'd be inclined not to bother with it as an option - we should probably have not included it in the original list or made it some sort of Lutzen special campaign with other requirements such as fielding a GC.

Mind you I'm not sure we even need to have commanded shot shoot, but that may just be me - views appreciated

[madaxeman]

The game effect of having them shoot is that it encourages/forces enemy to charge them, even when doing so may/will involve that same enemy going into a combat at poor odds (because of the commanded shot factor).

If horse with commanded shot can't charge, they probably therefore do need to shoot a little in order to prevent a stalemate. The question becomes at what range does this effect start to apply ... . ?

The current potential upside for the enemy of charging them at poor odds is the possibility of killing the commanded shot bases - this gives the attacker a unit towards breaking the enemy army, and (up to 2) overlaps, and at least 2 more cohesion tests to take for broken friends - all of which are very good.

Once the commanded shot become a marker (and I'm already thinking a 30mm round base piece with a few musketeers on it, maybe even a gun too) there may need also to be some mechanic by which the marker can be "killed" if the unit with it loses the combat as having a potential upside for charging in at poor odds seems like a necessary quid pro quo.

Whether this is a simple "removed if losing a combat", "removed if failing cohesion test in combat" or a more complex "killed in the same way as Generals", "removed if the unit loses a base" I'm not sure, but given the marker solution gets rid of a whole host of other negative consequences (admittedly at the cost of narrowing frontage by 50%), making it unkillable as well may be going too far.

The "marker" solution does also make armies smaller, as it strips out units and makes existing ones more expensive.

[ravenflight]

I'd like (for simplicity) to re-hash the idea of the commanded shot being EXACTLY like a Regimental gun.

I understand that they functioned differently, but I'm not sure if the overall result isn't achieved with this AND makes ruling a lot simpler. A disadvantaged bg gets an extra +0 dice, so 50% chance of a hit. If disadvantaged, this pretty much equates to evening up the score. It DOES give an advantage to those already advantaged, but those advantaged CANNOT initiate a combat, or they would lose the commanded shot.

Please understand, this suggestion comes PURELY from simplicity, so take into account the overall effect of this suggestion with simplicity in mind.

[madaxeman]

Reggie guns apply only at impact, and their additional shooting is an incentive for he enemy to charge home quickly

Commanded shot potentially have an effect in every round of combat (unless there is a mechanic for them to be killed). If that is a positive effect (as opposed to a "even things out if you lose" one) that might be material

[nikgaukroger]

The game effect of having them shoot is that it encourages/forces enemy to charge them, even when doing so may/will involve that same enemy going into a combat at poor odds (because of the commanded shot factor).

If horse with commanded shot can't charge, they probably therefore do need to shoot a little in order to prevent a stalemate. The question becomes at what range does this effect start to apply ... . ?

An excellent point

[nikgaukroger]

I think we seem to have something of a consensus that markers are the best way forward with this.

Any dissenting voices?

[timmy1]

Not from me