Commanded Shot

[hazelbark]

A strict requirement of any change is to end the Command shot operating as their own BGs when not with mounted. Anything that does not fix this is failure.

That was an ability that could be horribly abused or oddly used that makes no sense.

I tend to favor having them as MF and deployed attached to Mounted. The mounted then move like MF. This all seems to work. You have to solve the army break point and issue as well btw.

[ravenflight]

A strict requirement of any change is to end the Command shot operating as their own BGs when not with mounted. Anything that does not fix this is failure.

That was an ability that could be horribly abused or oddly used that makes no sense.

I tend to favor having them as MF and deployed attached to Mounted. The mounted then move like MF. This all seems to work. You have to solve the army break point and issue as well btw.

If you were to keep them as MF, I'd suggest that they are added to the BG and so the break point of the BG is adjusted but not of the army. Having someone go with 4 BG's of commanded shot and giving them a 16+ break point is stupid IMHO.

Personally, I'' more in favour of a marker, but as an alternative, increasing the bg to 6 or 8 bases with proportional losses makes more sense to me than individual sniper tesms.

[hazelbark]

Having someone go with 4 BG's of commanded shot and giving them a 16+ break point is stupid IMHO.

Well said.

[quackstheking]

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.

I agree with everything except the need to give them some shot capability and the extra dice at impact.

The shooting is the "incentive" that enemy need to charge them. Otherwise I foresee a situation where you will have stand-offs with neither side charging. Why would you charge a commanded shot BG knowing you would at best be evens at Impact but with one dice less/!

Indeed I can envisage that without shooting, you would send up some shooty LH to snipe at the Commanded shot-supported horse to force them to charge and lose the marker!

In view of the limited numbers of the commanded shot I would only give them 1 dice at both long and short range. Enough that they pose a risk to a dreaded 1 death roll but not enough to cause cohesion tests to 4 bases of opponents.

Don

[ravenflight]

In view of the limited numbers of the commanded shot I would only give them 1 dice at both long and short range. Enough that they pose a risk to a dreaded 1 death roll but not enough to cause cohesion tests to 4 bases of opponents.

Don

In addition to their own (the mounted that is) shooting?

[nikgaukroger]

In view of the limited numbers of the commanded shot I would only give them 1 dice at both long and short range. Enough that they pose a risk to a dreaded 1 death roll but not enough to cause cohesion tests to 4 bases of opponents.

Don

In addition to their own (the mounted that is) shooting?

Which brings up a question.

Other than the Parliamentarian left wing at Edgehill, can anyone think of a case where shooty mounted had commanded shot attached?

[nikgaukroger]

In view of the limited numbers of the commanded shot I would only give them 1 dice at both long and short range. Enough that they pose a risk to a dreaded 1 death roll but not enough to cause cohesion tests to 4 bases of opponents.

At normal musket* PoA or perhaps like Regimental Guns as a single shot needing 5 or 6 to hit mounted may not be quite enough of a threat?


* other than the Hugenots are there any Arquebus commanded shot?

[madaxeman]

In view of the limited numbers of the commanded shot I would only give them 1 dice at both long and short range. Enough that they pose a risk to a dreaded 1 death roll but not enough to cause cohesion tests to 4 bases of opponents.

At normal musket* PoA or perhaps like Regimental Guns as a single shot needing 5 or 6 to hit mounted may not be quite enough of a threat?

Hitting on a 5 or 6 would be a 2/3 chance of a hit every pair of turns, and then (I think?) a 1/9 chance of a base loss. With everything in 4-packs, being a base down is already sounding a little scary to me.

These things also won't be happening in isolation - any additional shooting on the unsupported horse would make it even more worthwhile.

Maybe from some of these dragoons who are now all in the flank sectors sniping from the hedgerows perhaps?

[benjones1211]

The maths is correct a 1 in 18 chance of death per shooting phase, or 1 in 9 per complete turn. Its enough to be irritating but not enough to be scary.

If hitting on a 4 becomes 1 in 12 and 1 in 6, which is getting scarier.

[nikgaukroger]

Which would be best for the game?

[kevinj]

I think hitting on 5s would be best, it's consistent with all other musket/carbine fire at horse and of course the chances increase if there are multiple BGs with commanded shot.

[quackstheking]

Agree with Kevin - keep it as hitting on 5/6's vs Horse and 4/5/6's vs foot - they are muskets after all!

Previously it would be set up so the CS would become a target priority but as a marker this will not happen in any exchange of fire so Foot vs horse will become a fight tipped back to the foot!

Don

[benjones1211]

Don't have the rules with me, just need a reminder.

For a mtd base to get protection from a CS base it needed to be in edge to edge contact. Did it also need to be front corner to front corner contact or would just edge to edge be enough, so the CS could be slightly behind the front line of the Mtd but give protection, because they had edge to edge.

As you can tell not a big user of CS.

[kevinj]

Yes, the CS must currently be in side edge contact and not project past the front of the mounted, they may be slightly stepped back.

[nikgaukroger]

Any side edge contact is enough, but the front edge cannot be forward of the mounted front edge.

Markers would make such positioning definition irrelevent though so I'm not sure what point you are making here

[ravenflight]

How this sound as an idea (more for flavour than anything - and I have no idea on the history of it, just going by the lists as written):

What if Salvo commanded shot gave a +1POA regardless on impact. This gives the Swedes that one extra bit of biff if they are up.

Just totally spit balling. Don't have a horse in this race (pardon the pun). I don't use Swedes OR commanded shot.

[nikgaukroger]

A straight + PoA was discarded in original play testing - I haven't seen anything that changes that decision.

[quackstheking]

How this sound as an idea (more for flavour than anything - and I have no idea on the history of it, just going by the lists as written):

What if Salvo commanded shot gave a +1POA regardless on impact. This gives the Swedes that one extra bit of biff if they are up.

Just totally spit balling. Don't have a horse in this race (pardon the pun). I don't use Swedes OR commanded shot.

I'm not sure the Swedish Commanded Shot should ever have been anyway! I always thought that the Salvo represented a shot before they charged in and I can see Commanded shot charging other cavalry.

As regards placing of the marker, in a 4 base Horse BG it should be the players choice as to which file it is with for arc of fire purposes, but it should provide protection ONLY for the BG it is attached to!

I prefer simplicity and treat all CS markers the same!

Don

[ravenflight]

I'm not sure the Swedish Commanded Shot should ever have been anyway! I always thought that the Salvo represented a shot before they charged in and I can see Commanded shot charging other cavalry.

It can also be a shot just before the lines clash as well... i.e. the receipt of a charge. Given we're discarding the marker if the BG charges, it would only happen on receiving a charge.

[kevinj]

I prefer simplicity and treat all CS markers the same!

Agreed! I think that we're close to a consensus on the principle, some specific areas that I think need to be resolved are:

1) Speed of the BG with CS attached. LF or MF? Personally I favour LF, I'm sure I've read that at least some cavalry carried their shot by riding double and they're certainly looser than a formed body of MF.
2) The specifics of how the support is applied for Horse and DH/Cavaliers. Are CS for the latter just more expensive?
3) The anomaly of the Arquebus ones. Maybe just make them a point cheaper and they only shoot up to 3MU?