Commanded Shot

[hazelbark]

2 MF base alongside looks much better.
A single base marker at the rear of a file is simpler but doesn't look great and does more violence to the existing armies and game structure.

I generally think include markers (like FOGN attachments) is a wiser course. But I would expand it and along Elephant markers/attachments to infantry, but that is another topic.

Having the bases alongside also expands the width of the mounted formations, which is also another way of strengthening weak mounted versus better and now potentially less numerous mounted.

I would recommend a few play tests with each to get a feel, even if it if is just a mounted wing of 3-5 BGs and then you can decide which feels right.

[nikgaukroger]

2 MF base alongside looks much better.
A single base marker at the rear of a file is simpler but doesn't look great and does more violence to the existing armies and game structure.

I think given the concerns players have raised that a solution that is fairly different to what we have is necessary.

I generally think include markers (like FOGN attachments) is a wiser course. But I would expand it and along Elephant markers/attachments to infantry, but that is another topic.

Nellie markers for infantry certainly has an appeal for some armies IMO

Having the bases alongside also expands the width of the mounted formations, which is also another way of strengthening weak mounted versus better and now potentially less numerous mounted.

As previously mentioned I think stretching formations is not accurate and is undesirable.

Not sure what you mean by "now potentially less numerous mounted" - what suggested changes could make mounted less numerous?

[donm2]

Have we considers markers similar to regimental guns?

A small round base with shooters on, moved to the back of the unit once in melee and removed when a unit routs.

Don

[nikgaukroger]

Indeed we have - and I think, on balance, that it is the option with the most support.

[timmy1]

A plea - so that we don't have to rebase all our commanded shot can we not just have them as a single MF base? Rebasing will put people off using them/playing the rules.

[nikgaukroger]

If the solution is a marker, a base of MF shot would be fine as the marker IMO - so using the existing bases

[timmy1]

Thanks

[DavidT]

It's a long time since I looked at this site, but, in checking to see if anything was new, I came across the proposed rule changes to FOGR.

Therefore I thought I had better put in my tuppence worth before it is too late.

Firstly, my army of choice is Early 30YW Swedish, so getting commanded shot right is important for me.
Secondly, I play in Ireland, where our numbers are small and we don't seem to get the same issues as arise with the competition circuit in the mainland UK (and further afield).

With regard to commanded shot, I like the way that the rules work at present with the commanded shot between the units of horse. This reflects what is shown in the battlefield maps where commanded shot are used (which are often based on contemporary illustrations). So I vote for something which has the commanded shot deployed at the side of the horse, rather than a marker or base behind. As the commanded shot just fills the element width between two units of horse which form a division, this shouldn't stretch the frontage.

I like the idea of stating which units can have commanded shot attached and that this is a permanent attachment.

I like the idea of including the commanded shot as part of the unit - so the 2 bases of commanded shot makes a 4 base horse BG a 6 base BG - this makes the unit less brittle, particularly for average horse. Gustav attached shot to his horse to stiffen them against the better imperial horse. In FOG, the Swedish horse would generally be Avg Armoured P/P. The imperial horse is generally either Sup Armoured P/P of Sup Hvy Armoured P/P. The use of commanded shot under the current rules with these troop types has very little effect (apart from shooting) as the Swedish horse are only benefitted by ignoring a -ve in melee against the Hvy Armoured Imperialists. My experience in games is that the superior imperialists smash the average Swedish horse and then destroy the unprotected commanded shot - a huge loss for the army. Making the commanded shot part of the unit would help.

With regards to speed, I believe that horse with attached commanded shot should move at 4MU. I have replayed Lutzen on a number of occasions and the one bit which I cannot get to work as it did in history is the cavalry action on the Swedish right due to the timings. The commanded shot delay the Swedish horse so that the cavalry action takes too long to happen. A 4MU move would help get the cavalry into contact more quickly and go some way towards matching the historical timescale. If you think about a body of commanded shot, they are a small unit with no pikemen and no colours and should be able to move more rapidly with the horse than a typical pike and shot unit (moving like light foot).

I like the idea of the commanded shot being removed once the horse charge or rout (although Gustav did detach his commanded shot at Lutzen to deal with the enemy musketeers in the hedgerows - so that would not be possible, but, you can't have everything).

Commanded shot need to be able to fire as that was their purpose in supporting the horse. If they cannot it could just lead to a stand off.

With regard to the use of Regimental guns with Swedish commanded shot at Lutzen, there has previously been much debate over how effective 2 extra light guns would be. However, the BG of horse and commanded shot are a game mechanism. The average size of a Swedish brigade at Lutzen was around 1400 men - this is a 7 element unit so each element represents approximately 200 men. The two bases of commanded shot therefore represent around 400 men. Each commanded shot detachment at Lutzen was around 150 men with 2 light guns; therefore 400 men represents almost 3 commanded shot units which would have had almost 6 guns - the same as a Swedish brigade and therefore this should be represented as a normal regimental gun. Many of the cavalry units at Lutzen were around 400 strong, which is 2 bases, however, we field them in the game as 4 base BGs which gives a playable representation, but if we do this with the horse, we need to do the same with the commanded shot, so they should be represented by 2 bases.

As a final note, Swedish commanded shot should be classed as musket. While they may have fired by salvo, they didn't have any less firepower than any other unit of commanded shot and the salvo classification is a special in the rules to represent the large Swedish volley just before charging into combat and is taken account of in the impact phase. For troops who cannot charge (either now or in any future revision) salvo is an incorrect classification.

Sorry for the long post.

David

[nikgaukroger]

It's a long time since I looked at this site, but, in checking to see if anything was new, I came across the proposed rule changes to FOGR.

Therefore I thought I had better put in my tuppence worth before it is too late.

Thanks for taking the time, it is appreciated and there is still time you'll be glad to hear - on all the issues so please feel free to comment on any or all

This post has crossed with my posting of a concrete proposal, however, discussion is still open so don't be put off by that.

[DavidT]

Hi Nik

You may not remember me but I'm sure you remember my son Daniel.

You played him at the European Individual Championships in DBM in Dublin back in 2007 when he was 9 and was amazed that he didn't get downhearted when your blades beat his Arab Conquest Wb(S) almost across his entire front on the first clash - he kept smiling throughout and proceeded to turn the tables in the second round, winning every combat to break your army.

Ah, the good old days.

[nikgaukroger]

A great weekend - I lost to 3 players who were under 10 IIRC