Commanded Shot

[quackstheking]

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.

True, but a CS base represents c150 men and a normal base 500 so a 2 base file represented 1000 troops!

Don

[nikgaukroger]

For the terminally interested, the idea behind having the Swedish commanded shot as Salvo was that they may have been more effective than some other commanded shot and that this could be represented by use of the -1 CT modifier for troops losing Impact combat to Salvo.

Obviously the side effects of this proved to be rather undesirable

As the premise is arguable anyway I don't think we need to bother with it in whatever we come up with for commanded shot in this revision - unnecessary complication.

[nikgaukroger]

True, but a CS base represents c150 men and a normal base 500 so a 2 base file represented 1000 troops!

I have no idea where you get those figures from. We never defined a scale but you can guesstimate a reasonable one, and it is less than those figures

the ones Ben used recently are much more reasonable.

[nikgaukroger]

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,

Use the same positioning rules as Regimental Guns IMO.

but it should provide protection ONLY for the BG it is attached to!

Indeed

[benjones1211]

What I was getting at was the following

A unit of horse with commanded shot move up to within 1mm of either better horse or P&S

The next turn the horse then charge, moving forward 1mm. Because the CS are still in edge to edge contact the Horse are still protected even if the CS have not charged because they are still in edge to edge contact. It does mean any base in front of the CS counts as an overlap to the Horse, but the Horse are not disadvantaged to that base or the one they are in contact with.

This is an occurrence where the horse with the CS can initiate contact and still have some of the bonuses of the CS.

If markers are to be used so far they have all talked about removing them if the Horse charged, in the above case, ie, a charge of less than a base depth then the CS still help.
Would we really want to get rid of this.

[kevinj]

Would we really want to get rid of this.

I don't see any reason to keep it. It's a feature of the current rules that I've never seen anyone use.

[nikgaukroger]

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.

I'm strongly of the view that MF rate is the way to go - partly as it is the current rate and IMO works just fine.

The only cases I can think of of shot riding double with cavalry (and I'm not sure they are even definite) is for strategic movement and not in battle.

I don't think that commanded shot formed up any differently from when they were with their normal units. Their shooting methods were just the same as far as I am aware so I don't see why they'd form up differently.

2) The specifics of how the support is applied for Horse and DH/Cavaliers. Are CS for the latter just more expensive?

Can't think of any reason why it would be applied differently - so just a points difference IMO.

3) The anomaly of the Arquebus ones. Maybe just make them a point cheaper and they only shoot up to 3MU?

Tempted to just remove them from the list. I'm not entirely sure they were really commanded shot as used by the Swedes, etc. - a bit of a step on the evolution but not the full thing just yet. If we knew which of the mounted they supported it would help - if it were the cuirassiers we could happily leave them out IMO, if it were reiters it is a bit different. Anyone any clues?

[nikgaukroger]

Would we really want to get rid of this.

I don't see any reason to keep it. It's a feature of the current rules that I've never seen anyone use.

Indeed, why would we want to keep a "geometrical" oddity?

Anyway, as a charge of even a gnat's todger in length is still a charge under what is being suggested to the marker would go. I see no issue.

[benjones1211]

I used 1mm so it was obvious, any charge at 1MU and under would have the same effect. Just wanted to show that Horse with CS could attack and keep the protection, if they were well organised

Just wanted to make sure we are covering all the bases being a bit of a devil(s advocate)

[nikgaukroger]

I used 1mm so it was obvious, any charge at 1MU and under would have the same effect. Just wanted to show that Horse with CS could attack and keep the protection, if they were well organised

Just wanted to make sure we are covering all the bases being a bit of a devil(s advocate)

Thought that was the case - and thanks for doing so, as you say best to make sure we cover as many things as possible

[timmy1]

Nik - keep the Henri IV CS as Arq with the shorter range and allow the CS marker to shoot as Musket/Arq (none of this Salvo stuff - I speak as one who abused it) without change to the shooting POAs and treat as Reg gun. Generally the armies that get CS get it because their mounted are (relatively) rubbish so the opponent does not need an incentive to charge. Allow BG that shoot to have it - keeps the rules simple and even ECW trotters in 1642 won't be scary just 'cos they get CS.

Move as MF, ability to drop the marker at any point. Whole BG counts protected.

Nuff said. Done deal. Move on.

Makes the game better and simpler IMO. Good change.

[nikgaukroger]

Tempted to just remove them from the list. I'm not entirely sure they were really commanded shot as used by the Swedes, etc. - a bit of a step on the evolution but not the full thing just yet. If we knew which of the mounted they supported it would help - if it were the cuirassiers we could happily leave them out IMO, if it were reiters it is a bit different. Anyone any clues?

Found something. It looks very much like it was the "charging cavalry" which would mean the cuirassiers, and it was not a case of bolstering weaker mounted but of getting a shot in before the cuirassiers charged - so not really the model that the FoG:R commanded shot arec representing.

Therefore, IMO, it would not be an issue to drop them from the Hugenot list and thus not need an exception for a single list. That said I don't have strong views either way.

[timmy1]

Not really fussed either way - if it makes the game simpler without hamstringing the FH I am fine.

[ravenflight]

I started to write something last night, but the last few messages on the board has made me want to write it again.

I'm starting to prefer the bases instead of makers idea.

Here's my thoughts.

A BG of mounted (as per a list to be generated by someone with more knowledge than I) can be supported by 2 bases of MF as commanded shot. They add to the size of the BG, but a BG cannot exceed 6 in size (so, can really only be added to a 4 BG of mounted, and thus make it a 6BG with all the resultant advantages of increased number of hits per base and auto break levels). They are proportionally lost as per the proportional losses rule. Each base gets 1 dice of shooting at musket and as the quality of the BG of mounted. The entire BG of mounted is treated as 'protected by commanded shot' as per the rules (this is to cover 2 dice mounted having a line with the 2 bases of commanded shot behind the middle files and the putter files not being contacted by the commanded shot. The entire BG would be covered, so this would supersede the 'edge to edge contact') as the bases are only indicative of an interspersal of foot within the mounted formation. The BG is treated as 'mounted' as a target for shooting and charging, and as the worst of MF or their mounted type for movement.

My reasons for pushing toward this, is that I think it would be aesthetically more pleasing to have 2 bases of foot mixed in with 4 bases of mounted, than 1 base not really having a place to go. I also feel that the BG acts as a unit, and so regardless of whether in edge to edge corner to corner contact should still have the benefits of the CS. The only caveat may be that they possibly should be steady to count.

Appreciate viewpoints.

i do understand that my rule increases the shooting somewhat, but you'd be paying points for this, so I don't really see an issue.

[benjones1211]

I am torn

I like the simplicity of a marker, but feel that there will be areas the marker doesn't cover. Such as shooting in charging cavalry, which is the Hugonout way, and to some extent the Swedish methodology.

I also like Ravenflights idea of 2 MF, as part of the BG, looks good, helps the breakpoint, determines shooting easily. The things it doesn't cope with are when the Horse want to leave the CS behind, as this seems to have been a regular thing. (Lutzen, both wings for example). What happens are the MF just lost, and the break point adjusted or not. And if the Horse rout, are the MF lost or do they rout as MF. If the MF lost then auto break may occur when it wouldn't have happened before.

[nikgaukroger]

I also feel that the BG acts as a unit, and so regardless of whether in edge to edge corner to corner contact should still have the benefits of the CS.

A marker system has no edge to edge or corner to corner definitions for getting the benefit of the CS, so this is not an issue.

FWIW I think the extra bases approach would look less aesthetically pleasing.

[ravenflight]

A marker system has no edge to edge or corner to corner definitions for getting the benefit of the CS, so this is not an issue.

= mounted
= commanded shot marker/commanded shot foot

Sure, but having this:





looks a lot more odd to me than:

[nikgaukroger]

I am torn

I like the simplicity of a marker, but feel that there will be areas the marker doesn't cover. Such as shooting in charging cavalry, which is the Hugonout way, and to some extent the Swedish methodology.

Simplicity is good, and to date I think the marker simplicity outweighs possible downsides - personal view of course.

The more I look at the Huguenot use of shot to support mounted the more convinced I am that it is not "commanded shot" as we are trying to represent and can be safely removed from consideration. As previously mentioned it is essentially offensive and not defensive and to all intents was a one shot (sorry) weapon rather than a multi-use one like the Swedish where multiple enemy charges are defeated due to it (such as Breitenfeld). IMO the Huguenots would possibly need a different mechanism, and for this update I'm not really interested in a 1 list new mechanism - as their Superior Cuirassiers are already good enough to beat their historical enemies without needing commanded shot I'm happy to either drop them from their list of use the marker solution which would (essentially) just give them the odd pot shot at an enemy before they charged.

[ravenflight]

The more I look at the Huguenot use of shot to support mounted the more convinced I am that it is not "commanded shot" as we are trying to represent and can be safely removed from consideration. As previously mentioned it is essentially offensive and not defensive and to all intents was a one shot (sorry) weapon rather than a multi-use one like the Swedish where multiple enemy charges are defeated due to it (such as Breitenfeld). IMO the Huguenots would possibly need a different mechanism, and for this update I'm not really interested in a 1 list new mechanism - as their Superior Cuirassiers are already good enough to beat their historical enemies without needing commanded shot I'm happy to either drop them from their list of use the marker solution which would (essentially) just give them the odd pot shot at an enemy before they charged.

I have toyed with the Huguenots but haven't actually built one. I'd say 'keep them' for historical purposes as I think you'll find most people wont bother with them (especially if they are forced to be with used with the Cuirassiers instead of the shooty types, which is reasonable) but if anyone wanted to use them they would be available for use.

[hazelbark]

The more I look at the Huguenot use of shot to support mounted the more convinced I am that it is not "commanded shot" as we are trying to represent and can be safely removed from consideration. As previously mentioned it is essentially offensive and not defensive and to all intents was a one shot (sorry) weapon rather than a multi-use one like the Swedish where multiple enemy charges are defeated due to it (such as Breitenfeld). IMO the Huguenots would possibly need a different mechanism, and for this update I'm not really interested in a 1 list new mechanism - as their Superior Cuirassiers are already good enough to beat their historical enemies without needing commanded shot I'm happy to either drop them from their list of use the marker solution which would (essentially) just give them the odd pot shot at an enemy before they charged.

Be careful. I would recommend fixing the main CS issue first. Then returning to the Hugenot situation and making it conform the minimum needed. Or then, if necessary consider a different solution. To potentially airily wave and eliminate a unique feature in a list is dangerous. If, and it may be an if, removing Hugenot CS makes the list worse then you have damaged the game. Going down any path that reduces army variety is an absolute bad thing and when it was occurred with other lists it has had a bad effect on player participation.