Slitherine

DavidT wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:A question that may (or may not) help.

Other than the commanded shot used by Gustavus, are there any cases where the historical record shows them having much effect?

Asking as a quick look at some cases suggests that Gustav used fairly large bodies of musketeers - a few hundred - whereas later examples (thinking mainly of the ECW ones here) are much smaller 50 man bodies. The former were clearly useful, less sure about the latter - at least to a level that needs representation by affecting a PoA, etc. in FoG:R.

At Naseby, the fire from the CS with the Royalist horse on their right forced Okey's dragoons to retire away from the fire to a point where they were protected from the fire by the terrain. Possibly not the type of effect you were thinking of, but a case of CS having an impact nonetheless.

Rather like the left wing of the Swedes at Lutzen - no longer really acting as supporting commanded shot. As you say, not really what I am pondering at this time.

viking123 wrote:Under the current rules CS only gives protection to the file it is next to. Thus if my cavaliers charge it is 2 dice at 4's and two at 5's for the carbine armed BG with CS. It gets an overlap from the CS in melee which I might be prepared to match if I have an overlap on the other side of carbine armed BG.

I don't know how other people use CS under the current rules, however, when I use them with my Swedes I either take the minimum 2 and leave them hidden in some terrain as they are a liability or I take 4 of them and put a CS BG on either side of a mounted BG; either a carbine/pistol horse BG if I want to maximise firepower or a hvy arm superior pistol/pistol horse BG if I want a tough group. Therefore the problem of only 1 file being unprotected is not an issue in my army.

viking123 wrote:My other concern was the fact that against infantry the carbine armed BG with CS gets 4 dice - one on a 4 and 3 on a 5. Yes under the current roles at short range they will get 5 - 2 on a 4 and 3 on a 5. However, under the current rules my infantry might be able to fire at the CS with one dice at long range and two at short on 4's so can kill the CS. Under the proposals I can not kill the CS so all my dice are at the mounted BG on 5's.

When only firing with 1 or 2 dice, killing CS who get a +1 on their death roll is not a high probability. Now, you get to concentrate more dice on the mounted, giving you a better chance of forcing a cohesion test or killing a mounted element. When the mounted goes, the CS goes too. There are few historical examples of mounted with CS taking on infantry - they nearly always faced enemy mounted. The only example I can think off is the Imperial musketeers lining the ditches at Lutzen - it is noted that the Swedish mounted suffered from this fire. Eventually the CS shot were detached from the mounted and drove the musketeers away using superior firepower.

viking123 wrote:When you are looking at the issue of how commanded shot worked in real battles you also need to clarify the number of CS markers a players is allowed under the army. Currently an ECW Parliamentarian army is allowed 0 - 4. As under the rules a CS BG is made up of 2 Medium foot that means an ECW Parliamentarian gets two CS BG's. This could be interpreted to mean that an ECW Parliamentarian can have 0 - 4 CS markers rather than just 2.

The current proposal is to allow the same number of markers as the number of elements (i.e. 0-4 CS markers in the example above). The enables more BGs of mounted to have CS which is a better simulation of what happened historically where quite a number of mounted units would have had CS. e.g at Breitenfeld and Lutzen, the entire front lines of Swedish cavalry had CS.

nikgaukroger wrote:

DavidT wrote: If the extra dice is removed then CS will become a waste of points.

Well that would surely depend on what points they end up being charged at - which is not finalised as yet.

In a number of playtests, using average mounted with CS against superior, without the extra dice in melee if at even POA, meant the average mounted died every time and therefore the CS were a waste of points, no matter how little you paid for them (I was using 8 points for an average CS). Why spend 8 points providing CS for an average armoured Pi/Pi BG which will lose almost every time to superior when you can spend 12 and make your own BG superior.

If it doesn't give you a reasonable chance of winning, spending the points is a waste, no matter how little.

The extra dice in melee make CS shot a viable option for average mounted.

nikgaukroger wrote:A question that may (or may not) help.

Other than the commanded shot used by Gustavus, are there any cases where the historical record shows them having much effect?

Asking as a quick look at some cases suggests that Gustav used fairly large bodies of musketeers - a few hundred - whereas later examples (thinking mainly of the ECW ones here) are much smaller 50 man bodies. The former were clearly useful, less sure about the latter - at least to a level that needs representation by affecting a PoA, etc. in FoG:R.

Any thoughts folks? Asking as I am essentially wondering if anyone other than the Swedes (Early Gustavan and Early TYW) should have CS ...

I think Bob's suggestion of reducing it to 1 Commanded Shot per 2 bases in the current list would mitigate the issue. It would still allow the Swedes to have 4 BGs protected which should be enough for most purposes.

Rocroi French TYW 1643

The Duke of Enghien also interposed a dozen musketeers' sleeves (about 1000 men) between the first-line cavalry squadrons.

So each must be about 80-85 men strong

Not that I have ever used CS with the TYW French

I also agree with Bob, they should be half the amount currently allowed.

Here is another suggestion about how CS could work for close combat.

Adding CS to a BG makes them Protected and any file in combat gets the advantage of this.

The effect of Protection would only apply against mounted (as in the rules as published) and would negate a - PoA (as published rules) or Better Armour (assuming the current suggestion on this) or, if there is no PoA or Better Armour to negate, would mean the file fights as 1 Quality Level higher.

I think what is becoming clear in all the comments of this and other subjects relating to proposed updates is the fact the each of us have different experiences of how some of the rules work or affect our armies and our games. I read some reports and think that I would never construct that army in that way or play it that way. I have played Alasdair and Ben on many occasions so have seen a very range of armies played. Also as a competition player I have seen the same army brought in a totally different format which has made me think why bring it like that as it will just die on the table.
Of course this is just my view and Nik's problem is to work through all the comments made by everyone who posts comments trying to divine the right way forward.

This is why I think it is important to have as much playtesting before coming to a final conclusion and not creating new problems.

This is why I believe it is important not to increase the number of commanded shot markers from the original number of commanded shot units - i.e. 0 -4 bases must mean 0 - 2 markers. Two commanded shot BG's meant either one BG's of mounted could be protected on both files and/or two BG's could be protected on one file. Two CS markers will allow two BG's of mounted to be protected. Four CS mounted allows 4 BG's mounted to be protected. This in my view changes the game by making some armies stronger than they were in before.

Another point when you shoot a commanded shot BG's you only have to hit it once to make it test and with a - on the cohesion test. Yes you have to hit it twice to force a death role. Therefore you only have to hit it three times to break it if your opponent is unlikely with their cohesion test. Do not say it never happens as there are a number of us out there where this is a regular occasion.

Once you have got rid of the CS BG the mounted BG is unprotected.

Numbers are the (very) easy bit to do. The important thing currently is the mechanism - if people could focus on that for a few days it would be great.

nikgaukroger wrote:Here is another suggestion about how CS could work for close combat.

Adding CS to a BG makes them Protected and any file in combat gets the advantage of this.

The effect of Protection would only apply against mounted (as in the rules as published) and would negate a - PoA (as published rules) or Better Armour (assuming the current suggestion on this) or, if there is no PoA or Better Armour to negate, would mean the file fights as 1 Quality Level higher.

This might work. It might make Breitenfeld hard to replicate, however you cannot have everything.

"if there is no PoA or Better Armour to negate, would mean the file fights as 1 Quality Level higher".

So with a General an average BG's with CS would reroll 1's and 2" whilst there superior opponent without a General will only reroll 1's.

We have proposed that the breakpoint for average BG's will be the same as superior. Surely this makes the average BG with CS too powerful. Lets just leave it as an extra dice.

And when would the reroll apply - impact, melee and cohesion?

Rerolls, as proposed for armour, would be for combat dice only, not Cohesion tests. To make a fair analysis you should compare like for like i.e. Average with Commanded Shot vs Superior without and not add in Generals. In this instance the rerolls will be the same for combat, but the Superiors will be better in Cohesion Tests.

I do like having markers... !

Any follower of your battle reports know you love a good marker! And bases = rectangles, markers = circles are a nice distinction.

madaxeman wrote:

I do like having markers... !

Especially when they are 2nd Generation Minifigs, you lucky chap!

Well I can guess which competition we will see them at.

Apologies for my lateness to this thread, but having broadly abandoned FoGR, I had stopped following the updates.

However having read the updates sheet, I would want to question why a mounted BG with a CS marker, charging 3" or less loses it's CS marker. (I accept a charge of 3"+ is a voluntary charge which will outdistance the foot).

Firstly,The rules indicate on p.84 that any charge against an enemy are assumed where appropriate (which would be nearly all horse) to countercharge, albeit with no tabletop movement. Therefore the horse receiving the charge ARE countercharging but don't lose the benefit of CS.

Secondly, in a situation where evenly matched Horse (both armoured or indeed unarmoured) are facing off, neither will initiate a charge as this would mean losing the CS and then being faced both at impact and in every melee round with an extra dice!

Thirdly, the Swedes, who had to a degree the most aggressive horse in terms of charging, must have 2 CS yet if they follow their aggressive nature they would never need CS as they would lose them every time they charged! Some of the comments I've read through the thread suggest the Hakkepelia have CS - why?!.

Fourthly, if I look at the points suggested, unarmoured horse look better value with CS than armoured horse without do, for only 1 extra point. They would never be down at impact and melee yet could always shoot and if charged, in the JAP they can break off (4"!) if allowed and then shoot again! Indeed if they broke off because they were disrupted and were charged again they would at worst case scenario be on even dice (lose 1 per 3 for disruption but gain one for the CS). In addition you could challenge whether a disrupted/fragmented BG should get the benefit of a CS marker if they had lost cohesion!

In summary, I cannot understand the rationale for the CS marker being lost on a blanket basis because a BG charges - surely it should only be lost if the charge distance that the base it is attached to has any corner that exceeds a 3" distance!

Don

Don

Totally agree with you there. Same with pursuit; if the BG pursues more than 3" lose the marker otherwise keep it. Still simple.