Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Pilgrim's progress  (Read 708 times)

martin goddard

  • Star Supporter Admin
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 3121
    • View Profile
Pilgrim's progress
« on: January 31, 2019, 08:47:11 PM »
Just updated BB.
Will go out tomorrow  then a silence until after York
Les has already started playing. Thanks Les.  The early editions will change wildly.

Imminent changes
1. Generals will change from numerical ranking to attributional ranking ( bit like ECW)
2. Some recovery of KO bases.
3. Clarifications as requested in Les' feedback
4. Some photos of games??
5. Artillery or cavalry nextish.
6. Pre game events nextish.

The game so far will concentrate on getting the infantry right, then the peripherals.  Not much point in fiddling with handgunners and cavalry if the turn sequence and infantry don't work properly.  Play testing can be frustrating I know, but also very rewarding in being part of a new thing; I hope.


Title. Something using "Bloody Barons".  Second quiver?

Martin Smith

  • Supporter 2019
  • Domestic Pig
  • *
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
Re: Pilgrim's progress
« Reply #1 on: January 31, 2019, 09:49:07 PM »
Bloody Barons Resurgent?

Sean Clark

  • RFCM Admin Supporter
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 1552
  • In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king
    • View Profile
    • Buckets of Dice
Re: Pilgrim's progress
« Reply #2 on: February 01, 2019, 12:13:58 AM »
Bloodier Barons
Bloody Barons Again

Colonel Kilgore

  • Star Supporter Admin
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 3149
    • View Profile
Re: Pilgrim's progress
« Reply #3 on: February 01, 2019, 07:14:32 AM »
Bloody Barons' Battles?

Leman

  • Star Supporter
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 1499
  • If it's too hard, I can't do it.
    • View Profile
Re: Pilgrim's progress
« Reply #4 on: February 01, 2019, 08:33:27 AM »
Oy, oy - look at me barnet!

Martin Smith

  • Supporter 2019
  • Domestic Pig
  • *
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
Re: Pilgrim's progress
« Reply #5 on: February 01, 2019, 09:08:33 AM »
Oy, oy - look at me barnet!

Classic 😊 👍👍👍

martin goddard

  • Star Supporter Admin
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 3121
    • View Profile
Re: Pilgrim's progress
« Reply #6 on: February 01, 2019, 11:41:40 AM »
Played our first game today.

Good start
Battle sheet worked fine. Had all the required boxes and information for the game setup.
New General ideas will make the battle sheet busier

Play sheet. No saves shown.

Will add.  Saves will be same fo shooting and fighting. At the moment

In the shooting box no 4th and 8th hits on the general. Also nothing about who places the hits.Hits placed by owner. 2 per unit. All excess placed by opponent anywhere, except on general.

We have some dice changes for woods and buildings but it does not seem consistent. On the whole there are penalties for scenery but no bonuses.
only hills are useful.  woods etc do not give cover as units need to deploy out of the cover to shoot effectively. Maybe we can allow units to be "within" and not shoot or be shot?

We played with the best quality armies.
Basing made sense, except there are no indications of sword, pike, bow numbers for the units. Units are assumed to be  a normal mix of weapons and bows. This will keep the calculations easier.
Out of order units worked. We could not see any reason for leaving the bodies down on the table if the unit was removed from going down to one base! The casualty markers affect the morale for the whole ward

Be nice to see the events when they come along. Hopefully?
Piggy chase and defender losses worked fine. Got into the 3rd level. Nice

Scenery, one building, two woods, one broken ground, two gentle hills. Did you find that fine or too busy?

Gentle hills were placed on defender's base line, one in the centre one in the flank zone. Didn't manage to move them so the defender had the whip hand all game, once the defender deployed on them he did not advance and as attacker could not dislodge them.

If the attacker takes just one of those hills (he already has 3 zone points)the game ends. Maybe move best stuff to one flank and hit that hard?

Game end worked fine, we could not see the defender losing zonal control. We did not have enough stuff to pay to continue the game, this may not be the case with a cheaper army with more bases. recovery might sort this?

The turn sequence worked fine and we understood it.Good news, it is quite convoluted!

We did not see how scenery affected item 3 if you use your general.the general will no longer affect push/pull. Push/pul can ignore scenery.

One unit of cavalry just seemed to be a liability.waiting for cavalry to get done yet

Morale was fine, formations fine, Win lose markers fine.loser markers now going
 Zones, wards, units, force, Assaults worked,
We did not understand the second attempt with more dice.This has now changed. If it is your 2nd turn of trying to get out of scenery and scoring 11. No you can use 4D6 instead, To stop you getting stuck there all day!

We did not over-stack, probably because we had small armies. Saves worked fine, but should there be some thing for scenery. Fights worked again the table seemed light on a few adjusters. Again cavalry were strange.Best to ignore cavalry at this stage

Scenery does not get a mention in the assault results Only hills matter at this point

Shooting. After a couple of assaults and ending up with very similar dice and so very random results we stepped back and just shot at each other for several turns.  We were both rolling 8,9,10 dice and getting more hits than from fights. You will get 2D6 for 3,4 frontgae units and only 1D6 for 1,2 base frontage units.  Maximum will be 8D6
Low on arrows works for intense shooting but too hard to have it applied and too easy to recover.I can look at these, early days. It is now 4,5,6 to apply and 5,6 to remove



Generals, we did not understand how they work with scenery when helping to move units. They no longer do, except to reduce the 11 needed to 10

Overall we did not get much of a feeling for the period and missed champions and bodyguards. Flavour should coma along once the basic move,shoot,morale , fight works.
And when we found shooting more successful in creating casualties it seemed a bit odd and out of period.

Present shooting rules should give,   A  Maximum and intense shooting. 8D6= 5 successes with re-roll. = 2.5 half bases removed.   B  Normal. 6D6. = 2 hits = single half base removed.   C .  Depleted arrows Hits on 6. 6D6= 1hit =half base killed..


Thanks very much for the  good notes Les. I have put it all here to open discussion.


John Watson

  • Star Supporter
  • Wild Boar
  • *
  • Posts: 120
    • View Profile
Re: Pilgrim's progress
« Reply #7 on: February 01, 2019, 04:50:30 PM »
Re "low on arrows".
Historically during these times archers would carry their own personal supply of arrows with them and once they were used up that would be it. Occasionally they would be able to re use arrows found on the ground but given that there was a battle going on foraging for arrows might be a bit hazardous to say the least.
To reflect this in the rules I would suggest that once you go low on arrows you stay low on arrows. This may also help to deter shooting matches and encourage fisticuffs (that would be a good name for a war-games show Martin).
Just my 2d worth
John

Leslie BT

  • Star Supporter
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 1683
    • View Profile
Re: Pilgrim's progress
« Reply #8 on: February 02, 2019, 07:50:26 PM »
Been through version 16 of 100. Some more reflections on the rules and the game.

Army points total page 5.
Is the total 70 or 65? Both stated.
Generals, IF you managed to roll the 10D6 and get 6's for each attribute is that allowed?

Stakes need to be added to the scenery list.

For sideways movement / assault do you need to roll to exit the scenery or do you roll to assault or does the ward do both?

Reading the building description it state two storey, so this will rule out peasant villages and farms. Two storey at this time would be ecclesiastical, castles or city buildings.

Would you not group rough ground in with rough hill.

Linear, when we are playing zones would it not be worth trying to only place linear on the joins/line between zones.
Tony Robinson has been left off the battle clock list!

Controlling a zone is it 4.5 as on page 17 or 5 as it is on 18 and does this include the general and is he worth 1, 2, or 3 half bases?

34 Morale, this is by zone front to back and right to left, why are we not doing the same for shooting, moving.
Does the general count as a base? I know he allows a re-roll.
In the morale outcome what happens to a general if present.
Can any retire sideways if the scenery behind does not allow a unit type to enter or are they just destroyed as with guns.

38. What about losing the fight markers, when and if are these changed?

43. For the second attempt is that 4D6 needing 11 or more?  How many times do you use the easier/ harder modifiers and is this points/ pips or dice?

44. Checks for over-stacking needs to be added into the on table turn sequence. Is there a risk to a general in an over stacked square?

46. are there any modifiers for scenery etc.

48. What if the target falls back and moves behind a hill or a wood does this prevent shooting.
In the fight other than a reduced number are there no other penalties for out of order?
Does the general count as bases?
Is the rear zone in support the only occasion that the half base number gets rounded up.
In falling back is the use of the general for casualties the players choice, and do the casualties have to be spread evenly. One for each unit then a second for each then a third for each etc.
What effect does the linear have in the fight?
What effect do the stakes have in the fight?
After the fight how many losing markers are placed?
What can be a blocked line for fall-back?

56. Shooting.
The passive player shooting is muddled. He can shoot at every assault. And he can then shoot at front touching zone.

Later it then states that the passive player can shoot 1 zone in all directions.
Is the D6 count by base or by unit?
Is intense shooting and low on arrows by unit or by ward/zone?

60 Recovery. Is this now 10, 11, or 12 on the turn sequence?

John Watson

  • Star Supporter
  • Wild Boar
  • *
  • Posts: 120
    • View Profile
Re: Pilgrim's progress
« Reply #9 on: February 03, 2019, 04:41:33 PM »
Just read through the draft and quite like the feel I got for it. Other than the low on arrows post I put up earlier I still have reservations about the unit size. I think 4 bases is too small, would 6 work better and be visually more appealing.
The other thing that concerns me is leaders. In WOR leaders were very important and the death of one's lord could be profound, so I worry about the ability of a unit to fight on after the loss of its leader. Should the unit perhaps be thinking of running away rather than just finding someone else to take over?
Cheers
John

Stewart 46A

  • Supporter 2019
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 1094
    • View Profile
Re: Pilgrim's progress
« Reply #10 on: February 03, 2019, 09:10:51 PM »
Hi John, size of units worried me a bit when anounced but the original set had units if 8 with complete unit as a casualty, this set has 4 bases with 1/2 base casualty.  With between 10 and 16 units on a smaller mat (5x3 ) it looks fine and plays well

martin goddard

  • Star Supporter Admin
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 3121
    • View Profile
Re: Pilgrim's progress
« Reply #11 on: February 04, 2019, 10:46:54 AM »
I agree that bigger units look great.  However it is matter of "access".
If you have 6 bases per unit and twelve units. We would need to buy/paint  3x6x12=216 figures plus odds.  4 bases per unit we have 3x4x12=144 figures. That is a lot by today's "blow things up" type games. players could reduce the base occupants to 2 figures instead of 3.
I have given number of units priority over size. This is so that 1 unit lost is a small part of the game and not decisive. The intention is that a player can lose 2 fights and still be in with a fighting chance.

owaincaesarius

  • Piglet
  • *
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Re: Pilgrim's progress
« Reply #12 on: February 04, 2019, 09:16:21 PM »
Just read the basic details on TMP- I like some of the ideas and intrigued by others. The WOR battles were more about leadership than cunning manoever so the area movement looks a decent idea- seen in Phil Sabine's works before but that isn't important. I have no real problem with smaller units sizes- although I will probably add more bases as I have them anyway. Look forward to seeing more details.

Graham (aka Owain)

martin goddard

  • Star Supporter Admin
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 3121
    • View Profile
Re: Pilgrim's progress
« Reply #13 on: February 04, 2019, 09:58:39 PM »
Not heard of that chap. The area movement comes from Peter Pig's conquerors and kings 1998. Did he write some rules before 1998, i doubt it. I expect he got the idea himself or from PP.

martin goddard

  • Star Supporter Admin
  • Hog the Limelight
  • *
  • Posts: 3121
    • View Profile
Re: Pilgrim's progress
« Reply #14 on: February 04, 2019, 10:10:50 PM »
There is a pre-game event being worked on.
Very similar to the POE sea fight aspects. 
Trying to get it quick enough so that players can get on with the game.
Will get it out before end of week for perusal.  Then cavalry I think??

I think a couple of game photos might get discussion going??