Commanded Shot - proposal

Moderators: hammy, Slitherine Core, FOGR Design

DavidT
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 269
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:10 pm
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: Commanded Shot - proposal

Post by DavidT » Sun Jan 29, 2017 11:16 am

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.

benjones1211
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 339
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 8:45 am

Re: Commanded Shot - proposal

Post by benjones1211 » Sun Jan 29, 2017 11:42 am

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!!

kevinj
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:21 am
Location: Derbyshire, UK

Re: Commanded Shot - proposal

Post by kevinj » Sun Jan 29, 2017 10:11 pm

The break off is something we haven't specified. I think it should be 4MU in line with Foot.

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Commanded Shot - proposal

Post by nikgaukroger » Mon Jan 30, 2017 1:24 pm

kevinj wrote:The break off is something we haven't specified. I think it should be 4MU in line with Foot.
Indeed we hadn't.

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

benjones1211
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 339
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 8:45 am

Re: Commanded Shot - proposal

Post by benjones1211 » Mon Jan 30, 2017 2:07 pm

My bad, should have remembered its 4Mu, but as my French can never break off, use it so rarely so just forgot.

DavidT
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 269
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:10 pm
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: Commanded Shot - proposal

Post by DavidT » Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:20 pm

I forgot as well as my Swedish foot never use it.

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Commanded Shot - proposal

Post by nikgaukroger » Tue Jan 31, 2017 6:22 pm

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).
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

DavidT
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 269
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:10 pm
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: Commanded Shot - proposal

Post by DavidT » Wed Feb 01, 2017 8:30 pm

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.

Jhykronos
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:52 pm

Re: Commanded Shot - proposal

Post by Jhykronos » Wed Feb 01, 2017 9:20 pm

I had a player with a question to clarify the proposal:
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.
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.

Jhykronos
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:52 pm

Re: Commanded Shot - proposal

Post by Jhykronos » Wed Feb 01, 2017 9:31 pm

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.
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.

Jhykronos
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:52 pm

Re: Commanded Shot - proposal

Post by Jhykronos » Wed Feb 01, 2017 10:04 pm

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?
Last edited by Jhykronos on Wed Feb 01, 2017 10:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Commanded Shot - proposal

Post by nikgaukroger » Wed Feb 01, 2017 10:07 pm

Jhykronos wrote:
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.
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.

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

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Commanded Shot - proposal

Post by nikgaukroger » Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:13 pm

Jhykronos wrote:I had a player with a question to clarify the proposal:
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.
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.

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

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Commanded Shot - proposal

Post by nikgaukroger » Tue Feb 14, 2017 7:32 am

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

DavidT
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 269
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:10 pm
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: Commanded Shot - proposal

Post by DavidT » Tue Feb 14, 2017 2:09 pm

I still want to see something done about CS with regimental guns. However, the basic proposal is fine.

spedders
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 107
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 9:29 pm

Re: Commanded Shot - proposal

Post by spedders » Tue Feb 14, 2017 6:46 pm

What is the current proposal on the minimum for Early TYW Swedes?

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Commanded Shot - proposal

Post by nikgaukroger » Thu Feb 16, 2017 8:36 am

DavidT wrote:I still want to see something done about CS with regimental guns. However, the basic proposal is fine.
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.
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

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Commanded Shot - proposal

Post by nikgaukroger » Thu Feb 16, 2017 8:38 am

spedders wrote:What is the current proposal on the minimum for Early TYW Swedes?
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.
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

DavidT
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 269
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:10 pm
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: Commanded Shot - proposal

Post by DavidT » Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:13 am

I think that there should be a minimum of 2 CS for the early 30YW Swedes.

DavidT
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 269
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:10 pm
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: Commanded Shot - proposal

Post by DavidT » Thu Feb 16, 2017 10:21 am

nikgaukroger wrote:
DavidT wrote:I still want to see something done about CS with regimental guns. However, the basic proposal is fine.
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.
Simple 1, History 0 :-(
We will develop a permanent house rule for games over here.

Post Reply

Return to “FOGR Update”