nikgaukroger wrote:

ravenflight wrote:Agreed. We're makkng them like commanded shot, which while more difficult to orchistrate, do not reduce an army's bg count if lost post recovery from a rout.

I assume you mean like Regimental Guns

Yes

Agreed. We're makkng them like commanded shot, which while more difficult to orchistrate, do not reduce an army's bg count if lost post recovery from a rout.

Perhaps reducing cost (of DH) is all that is needed. I mean, if you (for extreme example, not suggesting it) made Average Armoured DH 3 points each base, then I'm almost certain that people would get more than the minimum required. My point (pardon the pun) being, that if you fix the points the choi...

Personally, I can see a can of worms coming out of this. Then please explain further - it'll help everyone. If there are concrete examples of any interactions you feel would become less historical they'd be a great illustration and help no end. I'm not so much talking about history, which I can't c...

I've been trying to work out WHAT. it is that I don't like about this (changing the minima etc) proposal, and I think I finally have. I don't like it because it will affect an army that I run, and am happy with the design. Now this in itself is not enough to stop a change. I'm not saying this for a ...

I'm unsure. I'm concerned Gendarmes will lose their only advantage... and they (generally) already start at adisadvantage against the next technological leap, the Cuirassier. This maybe realistc, but beedsto be reflected somehow (pounts?) I'd also like to discuss the wording some. As you have it sta...

nikgaukroger wrote:Well it optionally gets them (all 2 BGs) in the Parliamentarian troops.

Yes, which is 3 BG's, and with the poor troops and artillery etc, meant that it was pretty easy to get to 17 (I think it was). Now, it would be 15. So... less than 16... so not necessary to make a rule about it.

nikgaukroger wrote:Point of order - Scots Covenanters do not have commanded shot.

Pretty sure the Marsden Moor version does. Or did I get the wrong army?

urbanbunny1 wrote:I've seen a few Scot Covenant armies at a similar head count (all at 800 points)

Yes. But that is because of Artillery (already covered by minimum foot BG per artillery proposal) and Commanded shot (already covered by getting rid of the commanded shot as separate BG's)

DavidT wrote:I also have a radical proposal for Swedes which I will raise in a separate post.

Keep in mind we're doing a 1.1, not a 2.0. Still interested in hearing your proposal of course, just reminding everyone (myself included) that we're not trying to re-invent the wheel.

Yes. The move as MF is about move distance and how terrain affects them, otherwise they behave the same as now. Wording would need to be bashed out to ensure this was clear 8) I was fairly certain that's what you meant, but wanted to be sure before I put my extremely valuable seal upon your proposal.

Yeah, like I said, I was only throwing it out there. As to the highlanders et al, you COULD put something in like MF Musket* 1 full front rank and 1 half rear rank Warrior Musket* 1 per 2 bases for up to 2 ranks... you could also give them the potential for 3 ranks to increase depth (if you wanted t...

nikgaukroger wrote:Our official proposed change to dragoons is:

Any move that starts, ends or goes within 6MU of enemy is as MF. This includes evade moves.

Just to clarify, this would mean that (in open terrain) a BG of Dragoons that pass a cohesion test would be able to do a full move retire 3" (in 15mm) correct?

Army break point cannot exceed 1 point per 50 troop points of the army maximum size for that game - e.g. for an 800 point game the maximum army break point is 16. I'm not so sure this one is so necessary with the proposed change in the Commanded Shot rules. The only time I've seen excessive break p...

Just a little outside the box, but what if we made the count for long range less but the count for short range full dice. So (for example) 1 dice per 3 at long range for musket*. They aren't going to stay there... they don't want to stay there... they will get out-shot, so they move up. They are now...

I'm in favour of the hitting mounted on the same as foot FWIW. For me, I'd prefer to see mounted hit the same as foot, but keep the artillery being able to shoot into the flank sectors. I know that there isn't much precedent for shooting into the flank, but I think if a player wants to do so he sho...

I would like Elites to be an exception to the autobreak on >50%. The Swiss were known to fight on when any normal man would have run away and having them as Elites reflects this nicely. It makes Elites worth those extra points. Poor & lights AT 50%; average & superior at > 50% or 1 base. Elite at >...

Given the rule currently exists to simulate thus, but has a number of potential issues in "real world" open play I see no reason why it can't be laid out as a "default" of being removed, but an optional rule as well that can be used if event organisers (or scenario designers) want to Use a rule for...

Is there any record of artillery being captured and used to any appreciable effect on a battle? Any recapture at all?

Nik I am ok with the two step program for mounted on mounted action, provided there is a (admitidly small) reduction in the cost of said armour for mounted (as it will still be useful against Bows and long range Shot). It will make some of the Duty and Glory historical interactions closer. Regards ...