Commanded Shot - proposal
Moderators: terrys, hammy, Slitherine Core, FOGR Design
-
- Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
- Posts: 270
- Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:10 pm
- Location: Northern Ireland
Re: Commanded Shot - proposal
Other factors to consider are:
The CS reduce the movement of mounted; a Reg Gun does not affect the movement of an infantry BG. This is an important consideration as, in my second playtest against the Imperialists, my opponent abandoned hi CS on a number of occasions as he needed to get the extra movement with his horse.
CS firepower is usually on its own, whereas the Reg Gun firepower adds to the infantry firepower; the added firepower with an infantry BG can often be the difference between forcing a cohesion test or not. A Swedish brigade gets two dice at 5+ v mounted, giving it a 1 in 9 chance of forcing a CT. Adding a Reg Gun increases this chance to 1 in 3. Against foot, it has a 1 in 4 chance without a Reg Gun and a 1 in 2 chance with a Reg Gun. With ordinary Musket armed infantry BGs at close range the increased chance from the Reg Gun is not as marked, but it is still there.
Finally, the CS are a one shot weapon – when your opponent charges you, you will lose the CS whether you win or lose.
So I would reduce the CS cost for Average and Poor (the troop types most in need of it) but keep the points up for Superior and Elite.
This brings me to another query – if the mounted BG breaks off, does it retain it’s CS (moving back 3MU)? I assume yes as it is not one of the cases noted which causes removal.
The CS reduce the movement of mounted; a Reg Gun does not affect the movement of an infantry BG. This is an important consideration as, in my second playtest against the Imperialists, my opponent abandoned hi CS on a number of occasions as he needed to get the extra movement with his horse.
CS firepower is usually on its own, whereas the Reg Gun firepower adds to the infantry firepower; the added firepower with an infantry BG can often be the difference between forcing a cohesion test or not. A Swedish brigade gets two dice at 5+ v mounted, giving it a 1 in 9 chance of forcing a CT. Adding a Reg Gun increases this chance to 1 in 3. Against foot, it has a 1 in 4 chance without a Reg Gun and a 1 in 2 chance with a Reg Gun. With ordinary Musket armed infantry BGs at close range the increased chance from the Reg Gun is not as marked, but it is still there.
Finally, the CS are a one shot weapon – when your opponent charges you, you will lose the CS whether you win or lose.
So I would reduce the CS cost for Average and Poor (the troop types most in need of it) but keep the points up for Superior and Elite.
This brings me to another query – if the mounted BG breaks off, does it retain it’s CS (moving back 3MU)? I assume yes as it is not one of the cases noted which causes removal.
-
- Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
- Posts: 353
- Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 8:45 am
Re: Commanded Shot - proposal
Actually if you look at my post I had included
1) that the CS slowed down movement
Also the following are pertinent:
2) points reflect basic firepower not whether they are combined.
3) Its not a one shot weapon, the new idea is that it does add +1 dice in melee, which actually makes it much more versatile than a RG, some RG fire twice then impact then fighting for most of the rest of the game. In this case CS would be worth much more as they would impact all the fighting rounds. Which is why I think the +1 melee offsets the negatives the CS has to make them equivalent in effectiveness.
4) Its not lost whether you win or lose, only if you are routed. Break offs would be at 3MU so not losing the CS unless you want to go further. I would also allow a Pursuing Mtd unit with CS to pursue at a basic 3MU if they pass a CMT and not lose the CS. Ie. the commander has managed to control them enough to keep them together. And once pursuing at that rate it continues until pursuit stops.
5) If you have an army with RG's and decide to use a commanded out shot option you lose the RG's completely, just like the mtd moving quickly. Choices!!
1) that the CS slowed down movement
Also the following are pertinent:
2) points reflect basic firepower not whether they are combined.
3) Its not a one shot weapon, the new idea is that it does add +1 dice in melee, which actually makes it much more versatile than a RG, some RG fire twice then impact then fighting for most of the rest of the game. In this case CS would be worth much more as they would impact all the fighting rounds. Which is why I think the +1 melee offsets the negatives the CS has to make them equivalent in effectiveness.
4) Its not lost whether you win or lose, only if you are routed. Break offs would be at 3MU so not losing the CS unless you want to go further. I would also allow a Pursuing Mtd unit with CS to pursue at a basic 3MU if they pass a CMT and not lose the CS. Ie. the commander has managed to control them enough to keep them together. And once pursuing at that rate it continues until pursuit stops.
5) If you have an army with RG's and decide to use a commanded out shot option you lose the RG's completely, just like the mtd moving quickly. Choices!!
-
- Major-General - Tiger I
- Posts: 2379
- Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:21 am
- Location: Derbyshire, UK
Re: Commanded Shot - proposal
The break off is something we haven't specified. I think it should be 4MU in line with Foot.
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
Re: Commanded Shot - proposal
Indeed we hadn't.kevinj wrote:The break off is something we haven't specified. I think it should be 4MU in line with Foot.
Same as foot sounds right - no need to introduce a different distance IMO.
Nik Gaukroger
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
-
- Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
- Posts: 353
- Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 8:45 am
Re: Commanded Shot - proposal
My bad, should have remembered its 4Mu, but as my French can never break off, use it so rarely so just forgot.
-
- Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
- Posts: 270
- Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:10 pm
- Location: Northern Ireland
Re: Commanded Shot - proposal
I forgot as well as my Swedish foot never use it.
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
Re: Commanded Shot - proposal
Any more for anymore on this one.
We'd like to make a decision soon (other than points which will be ongoing for a bit I think).
We'd like to make a decision soon (other than points which will be ongoing for a bit I think).
Nik Gaukroger
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
-
- Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
- Posts: 270
- Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:10 pm
- Location: Northern Ireland
Re: Commanded Shot - proposal
I was thinking about the proposal that protected mounted (i.e. those with CS) ignore better armour.
This might be a bit much. They don't do this in the current rules.
Consider a BG of Avg Arm P/P Hse with CS against a BG of Sup HvyArm P/P Hse.
At impact, they are even so the unit with CS gets an extra dice. 5 dice at 4 (2.5 hits on average) v 4 dice at 4 re-rolling 1s (2.33 hits on average). The BG with CS has a slight edge.
In melee, if the BG with CS ignores better armour, then the probabilities are the same as at impact.
In melee, if the BG with CS does not ignore better armour, they are still even however, it is 5 dice at 4 rerolling 6s (2.083 hits on average, I think) v 4 dice at 4 re-rolling 1s (2.33 hits on average). So the Sup HvyArm Hse now has a slight edge.
I think the latter is better, otherwise the HvyArm Hse are identical to Arm Hse v BGs with CS.
Just a thought.
This might be a bit much. They don't do this in the current rules.
Consider a BG of Avg Arm P/P Hse with CS against a BG of Sup HvyArm P/P Hse.
At impact, they are even so the unit with CS gets an extra dice. 5 dice at 4 (2.5 hits on average) v 4 dice at 4 re-rolling 1s (2.33 hits on average). The BG with CS has a slight edge.
In melee, if the BG with CS ignores better armour, then the probabilities are the same as at impact.
In melee, if the BG with CS does not ignore better armour, they are still even however, it is 5 dice at 4 rerolling 6s (2.083 hits on average, I think) v 4 dice at 4 re-rolling 1s (2.33 hits on average). So the Sup HvyArm Hse now has a slight edge.
I think the latter is better, otherwise the HvyArm Hse are identical to Arm Hse v BGs with CS.
Just a thought.
Re: Commanded Shot - proposal
I had a player with a question to clarify the proposal:
Does this mean 1 die at any range? Because if long range reductions apply, there really isn't a difference between arquebus and muskets here.The BG gets to shoot with 1 die at Musket range with PoA modifiers as Musket with the exception of those in the Huguenot list which shoot as Arquebus. The shooting base is the one the marker is with.
Re: Commanded Shot - proposal
Actually they pretty much do. Protected horse get a +1 POA if their opponents have a better POA. 99% of the time, in historical matchups, the reason their opponents would have a higher POA in melee is armor.DavidT wrote:I was thinking about the proposal that protected mounted (i.e. those with CS) ignore better armour.
This might be a bit much. They don't do this in the current rules.
Re: Commanded Shot - proposal
Comparison of the rules as-written to the proposal:
Rules as Written:
Advantages:
Higher fighting Frontage
More Shooting Dice
Ability to Use Salvo and Regimental Guns
Commanded shot stands tend to be +POA vs enemy mounted
Cheap army breakpoint inflation
Commanded shot may be detached for other missions
Disadvantages:
More Commanded shot are needed to provide protection to the entire frontage
Protecting the entire frontage of widely deployed determined horse is impossible
Unlucky death rolls can unravel the whole system.
Proposal:
Advantages:
Cheaper
Unit is entirely protected
POA "Tiebreaker" dice
Disadvantages:
Less Firepower
+POA files are gone
If detached, are lost for rest of the battle
...
I think the fundamental question here is what effect are we trying to achieve here? What benefit SHOULD commanded shot provide?
In the existing system, apparently the answer is to turn otherwise pointless mounted harkebusiers into a horsie meat grinder, or to give the Swedes a bunch of small-frontage sniper teams.
In terms of historical usage, I've heard several hypotheses:
1. To provide horse stiffening against better quality horse.
2. To provide horse on the defensive support against larger numbers of enemy horse.
3. To replace the function of the carbine-armed cavalry with more reliable fire support.
4. (Early Swedes) To give the horse an equivalent to the foot brigades' tactics of blunting the enemy's cohesion with overwhelming salvo fire, followed by a countercharge led by the melee troops.
So is one of these a guiding statement for what the proposal is trying to accomplish, other than to reduce/mitigate the current usage of commanded shot?
Rules as Written:
Advantages:
Higher fighting Frontage
More Shooting Dice
Ability to Use Salvo and Regimental Guns
Commanded shot stands tend to be +POA vs enemy mounted
Cheap army breakpoint inflation
Commanded shot may be detached for other missions
Disadvantages:
More Commanded shot are needed to provide protection to the entire frontage
Protecting the entire frontage of widely deployed determined horse is impossible
Unlucky death rolls can unravel the whole system.
Proposal:
Advantages:
Cheaper
Unit is entirely protected
POA "Tiebreaker" dice
Disadvantages:
Less Firepower
+POA files are gone
If detached, are lost for rest of the battle
...
I think the fundamental question here is what effect are we trying to achieve here? What benefit SHOULD commanded shot provide?
In the existing system, apparently the answer is to turn otherwise pointless mounted harkebusiers into a horsie meat grinder, or to give the Swedes a bunch of small-frontage sniper teams.
In terms of historical usage, I've heard several hypotheses:
1. To provide horse stiffening against better quality horse.
2. To provide horse on the defensive support against larger numbers of enemy horse.
3. To replace the function of the carbine-armed cavalry with more reliable fire support.
4. (Early Swedes) To give the horse an equivalent to the foot brigades' tactics of blunting the enemy's cohesion with overwhelming salvo fire, followed by a countercharge led by the melee troops.
So is one of these a guiding statement for what the proposal is trying to accomplish, other than to reduce/mitigate the current usage of commanded shot?
Last edited by Jhykronos on Wed Feb 01, 2017 10:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
Re: Commanded Shot - proposal
Jhykronos wrote:Actually they pretty much do. Protected horse get a +1 POA if their opponents have a better POA. 99% of the time, in historical matchups, the reason their opponents would have a higher POA in melee is armor.DavidT wrote:I was thinking about the proposal that protected mounted (i.e. those with CS) ignore better armour.
This might be a bit much. They don't do this in the current rules.
This is exactly the reason CS cancel better armour under the current proposal.
Note that this does mean that in some circumstances it will be possible to get a double effect from CS is the troops with CS are faced by enemy who have better armour and have a melee PoA advantage. I think the most likely way this will happen is Western horse types who are Unsteady when fighting Eastern types who have better armour.
Nik Gaukroger
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
Re: Commanded Shot - proposal
Jhykronos wrote:I had a player with a question to clarify the proposal:
Does this mean 1 die at any range? Because if long range reductions apply, there really isn't a difference between arquebus and muskets here.The BG gets to shoot with 1 die at Musket range with PoA modifiers as Musket with the exception of those in the Huguenot list which shoot as Arquebus. The shooting base is the one the marker is with.
Yes, 1 dice at any range - we will make it clear.
Nik Gaukroger
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
Re: Commanded Shot - proposal
nikgaukroger wrote:Any more for anymore on this one.
We'd like to make a decision soon (other than points which will be ongoing for a bit I think).
I will take the lack of further comments for over a week as acceptance of this then. Scream now if you disagree.
Nik Gaukroger
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
-
- Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
- Posts: 270
- Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:10 pm
- Location: Northern Ireland
Re: Commanded Shot - proposal
I still want to see something done about CS with regimental guns. However, the basic proposal is fine.
Re: Commanded Shot - proposal
What is the current proposal on the minimum for Early TYW Swedes?
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
Re: Commanded Shot - proposal
Pretty much ruled out. IIRC they are only recorded for Lutzen and there the Swedish horse actually performed worse that at Breitenfeld - I'm not sure there is any case for doing anything. Fortunately it'd be very easy to add a RG as a house rule if you disagree.DavidT wrote:I still want to see something done about CS with regimental guns. However, the basic proposal is fine.
Nik Gaukroger
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
Re: Commanded Shot - proposal
Currently we have said no minimum, however, a minimum of 2 is reasonable and we may end up going with that. Now is a good time for anyone who hasn't to express a preference.spedders wrote:What is the current proposal on the minimum for Early TYW Swedes?
Nik Gaukroger
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
-
- Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
- Posts: 270
- Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:10 pm
- Location: Northern Ireland
Re: Commanded Shot - proposal
I think that there should be a minimum of 2 CS for the early 30YW Swedes.
-
- Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
- Posts: 270
- Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:10 pm
- Location: Northern Ireland
Re: Commanded Shot - proposal
Simple 1, History 0nikgaukroger wrote:Pretty much ruled out. IIRC they are only recorded for Lutzen and there the Swedish horse actually performed worse that at Breitenfeld - I'm not sure there is any case for doing anything. Fortunately it'd be very easy to add a RG as a house rule if you disagree.DavidT wrote:I still want to see something done about CS with regimental guns. However, the basic proposal is fine.
We will develop a permanent house rule for games over here.