BB35

[martin goddard]

The ground has changed a lot in this edition.
This does not mean that it cannot revert to earlier forms.

Here is a report on our game with 35.

The hesitant/unreliable general. Weirdly this aspect affected the battle quite a lot. Just luck. It caused 3 attacks not to happen. Also caused 2 targets to fall back in the face of opponent attacks too. Will play it some more to see if it "levels".

Four zones (4Z). Needed a bigger table. If a traditional RFCM 12x6 template is used I think the 4 units present would cause all the scenic "decoration" to be removed. I personally like to see some vestigial  tree or building to show what is supposed to be there.  We used a 5x3 table. It looked good though.
The 4Z also allowed the army to spread . The spread means that the army by necessity now has weak points. This is good news for cavalry.
4Z might need a 4th general.

Generals' abilities. We got lots of these . Specifically 7, which is high.


Our game.
Stewart and martin (goodies-attackers) versus Rob and Dennis (baddies-defenders).

Scenery. Used the new 5 on 2D6 system. Created about 3 zone moves. All acceptable. The defender had 2 hills on their base edge. A wood in the table centre. Other scenery on attacker's base edge. The hills to effect by the defender. The rest of the scenery dd not hinder the armies, but did restrict cavalry action potential (good).

Artillery. Attacker artillery did very well (Stewart). 3 light guns and 1 heavy, concentrated on a base edge hill.  Loading time seemed about right (opinion only). Winding up mechanisms for re-load worked OK.

Archery. Only a couple of "low on arrows" happened.  Seemed about right. Some excellent close range intense shooting, totally reversed when the unreliable roll had been forgotten. Then rolled for and the shooting reversed (7 hits).

Fighting. One exceptional fight by defender was most satisfying. 7 scores of 5,6 out of 9D6 Dennis. Cavalry fight smashed the left wing of attacker's force, including an instant rout of 1 defender unit. Most fights had about 10 to 14 D6.

Morale. Forced an attacker ward back. Couple of morale generals present, which helped defender to stay on his hills.

Overall the attacker swept forward on both flanks. Then unreliable generals forced them back. Very quiet in the centre. Attacker's cavalry fell back due to unreliable general. Defender cavalry smashed the attacker left wing. Recovered attacker left wing then stormed up the defender's base edge hill and swept the enemy defenders away. Defender's centre , units in the wood rushed out and hit the attacker's advancing ward in the side. attacker ward fell back in disarray.

Game ended with attacker well forward but slit into the two flanks.The defender held his left flank intact and a strong centre.

A very small win for the attacker mainly because of the zonal holdings.

Overall i felt the game worked very well in terms of historical plausibility. The armies did thin out though. Cavalry worked very well. About 13 units, plus 3 cavalry per side.

Only 1 general died.

[Colonel Kilgore]

Thank you for this detailed AAR, Martin. The latest changes sound very promising.

[Nick]

Yes, that was a good read. Looking forward to trying the new version at the weekend.

Nick

[martin goddard]

The armies are getting quite large in terms of figures.

18 units = 18x4x3=+ markers= 240 figures
10 units=10x4x3=+markers=120 figures

OR

2 base units or 3 base units

Therefore there may be a "pocket sized" version to allow better access for players with fewer figures/space/money.
Probably along the lines of  3 zone (ignore one zone from game), 10 unit type.

[Colonel Kilgore]

The armies are getting quite large in terms of figures.

18 units = 18x4x3=+ markers= 240 figures
10 units=10x4x3=+markers=120 figures

OR

2 base units or 3 base units

Therefore there may be a "pocket sized" version to allow better access for players with fewer figures/space/money.
Probably along the lines of  3 zone (ignore one zone from game), 10 unit type.

Thanks Martin - I think it's really helpful to think about the total figure requirements, which have been something of a psychological barrier for me with some of the larger RFCM games. So it would be great to have the option of a "Bloody Barons Lite" in the way you suggest.

[lowroller]

To be fair, 240 figures is still quite small by the standard of many of the old DBM games I used to play. 400 was not that unusual.
Having said that, I applaud the principle of keeping things smaller from the point of view of start-up costs for new players, and I appreciate that not everyone can manage large armies (especially if they game in many periods).  And a 'lite' option is even better, so you can cover all tastes and circumstances.

[Colonel Kilgore]

I generally plan on making two opposing forces (I know that Martin prefers the term "factions" ), so 240 x 2 + markers is probably not far shy of 500 figures in all.

[Nick]

I don't think the number of figures needed is a problem, but that said, I think the idea of adding in the smaller "pocket-sized" option for people starting out is a great idea.

[martin goddard]

Yes Simon, factions or probably this time "warbands", "football squads" , "harems" or "gangs". Thinking of doing cards for each warband unit so you have to buy the PP figures? Each pack will have an alliterative title. Bishop's bashers etc.. Stats on the card would be  walking speed, hunger, eye colour, ankle strength, magic, dagger type and distance from home. You play one value against another and see who wins each round of conflict.

[John Watson]

Bloody Barons Top Trumps. Add to Bloody Barons and Bloody Barons Lite and you have a PP special 3 games in one.
Champion Martin.

[Colonel Kilgore]

Bloody Barons Top Trumps. Add to Bloody Barons and Bloody Barons Lite and you have a PP special 3 games in one.
Champion Martin.

I'm guessing we could sub-title it "THE Medieval Warfare Game"?

[martin goddard]

I think we have got it gentlemen. A winner!

[Stewart 46A]

I still think we need a couple of those Da Vinci tanks to really sell to the young ones

[Colonel Kilgore]

a couple of those Da Vinci tanks

But surely they were only ever deployed in full battalions?

[Leman (Andy)]

And if they existed it would be in the Italian Wars in Italy rather than the WoR in Britain.