First for anyone in the Williamsburg, VA area I will be running two games of Boom and Zoom at the Williamsburg muster on 15 Feb. It is always a great group of folks so come out and test drive the rules and tell me what you think.
Now for my review of Peter Pig’s 2025 version of Poor Bloody Infantry. I could not find many reviews of the rules in any of their editions so hopefully this will help folks. Martin has many good videos of many of the game mechanics at his Peter Pig Website. Hence I won’t go over many of the nuts and bolts but give an impression of how they play. First a couple of caveats:
I have played 4 games with the rules. I think this is enough to get a feel for them but I have no doubt there are some subtleties I have missed.
All games have been played solo.
I have met the designer years ago and have found him a pleasant chap.
Rulesets are subjective but when reviewing a ruleset it is important to understand what the designer’s intent is. Otherwise a reviewer can have unfair complaints. (If you buy a sports car you shouldn’t complain that there isn’t the carrying capacity of a SUV!) Martin is very clear that PBI is designed for two players to show up with a prepared company of troops plus support, quickly generate a generic attacker/defender scenario and play to a conclusion in about two hours.
This makes it different from every WW II set I have except perhaps Piquet. Battlefront WW II, O Group, TW&T ect are all designed to have historical forces engage each other normally in historical type engagements. I authored Platoon Forward partly to have a scenario generator to quickly generate 20 different types of battles to use with the above type of rulesets.
So PBI is already different for me. You need to build your company first. The rule book shows you how to calculate points to build your company. If you are familiar with platoon structure you can build historical platoons no problem. If you aren’t sure you can buy PBI’s companion book entitled Company Architect. This gives you a plethora of companies for not just for the major powers but all the minor ones too. It also contains armor data and “asset” data which we will touch on shortly. To be honest, I felt building companies “gamey” and time consuming. After two games I just went with historical TO&Es. That said, in going with Martin’s theme, it could be fun for some and would ensure an even “match”.
Once you have your company you pick three assets for the game such as “artillery” or “sniper”. Then you start an engaging dice game called a “piggy chase” where you have to be the first player to roll a D6 sum to 36. The results of this game determine who is the attacker and how many platoons start on the board. This is a clever mechanic and I think this would be a blast with two players. As a solitaire player though it loses some zest.
One of the complaints I have seen on line about PBI is that you can’t play historical scenarios with it; poppycock! My 4th game with PBI was actually the bonus recon scenario from PF using a US armored infantry company with a section of Lee tanks. I played solo and let PF run the germans. The game worked fine. So if you are a solo player or not interested in the above, don't worry. You don't have to use any of it to play an actual game of PBI. But if this interests you it is there and I haven't found it in any of the other rulesets I have.
The actual PBI game
The actual game itself is played on a 8x8 grid which turns a lot of gamers off but I have been playing hexes for over 10 years now. I love the ease of movement, the distance is known and it is easy to position figures.
There are some idiosyncrasies with the grid such as infantry can't move diagonally but once you play the grid works well.
Your actual maneuver unit in PBI is a platoon made up of infantry bases of three men or 2 man specialty teams. Martin states this is to help him sell figures; I appreciate his honesty! This again is different than all my other games which are either individual figures, half squads or squads. So most squads will be made up of two rifle bases and a LMG base. The upside of this more granular approach is easier breakdown during casualties and you can split off a 3 man team to scout/draw fire if you need to. The downside besides more painting would usually be moving the figures but since we are using squares that are activated per square this downside disappears. I actually like this approach. My only disappointment here is the game doesn't emphasize the squad (or section for Martin) anywhere in the rules.
Combat is straightforward and is bucket of dice. Each weapon is rated for how many dice it gets and you always hit on a "6". You can choose to try to pin or go for the kill. There is no "disrupted" state in PBI. This takes a little getting use to but after a couple of games I like it. It plays quicker. The system is clean and fast and there is a nod to some weapon differences such as the german LMGs being the best geting more dice than other LMGs. It can be very difficult to kill stands in the game which is realistic. You almost always have to pin them first which cuts down on their return fire. I do think there isn't enough pinning of troops but that is my personal opinion. Assault is deadly and follows a similar theme.
Armor Combat follows a similar theme. Vehicles have an offensive value which equates to number of dice with "6s" hitting and then an armor value for saves. Vehicles are stunned or killed. It works well but I have been spoiled by Battlefront WW II's system which is slick.
Command and Control is done by rolling a D6 for each square. This is modified by presence of an officer and distance to the platoon leader. This gives you the number of action points for the square. Veteran troops get a +1 while raw troops get a -1. This is a simple yet elegant way to model initiative. Platoon leaders are important in getting troops to move and lay down accurate fire. [Each square can fire up to three times. Sometimes you need a lot of dice to hit. That will cost you 3 action points my friend! ] This is probably my favorite mechanic of the system. Your platoon leaders will lead. The company commander ends up running around the board boosting his commanders rolls. This I am not as much a fan of as he should be directing the battle; moving only to steady a unit. Overall C+C is quick, easy and feels like you are running the battle.
Favorite Points
Command and Control As already stated, this is quick and easy and subtly shows differences in training. Did I mention pinned troops have -2 APs? Simple and models their slowness to do anything. Also important for folks like me that run Character driven campaigns this will be easy to play with so I can model Sgt Schmidt from 2nd squad or Capt Stransky from the Cross of Iron.
Grid system I like not measuring and the grid system also works to speed up the game. It also leads to small firefights which are quick to adjudicate as they are between squares not individual bases.
Combat System Clean, simple and quick. Needing a "6" to hit is easy to remember and the saves are easy as well. After 10 minutes you should need no charts for infantry firefights- ever. The results seem realistic except I still think it is too hard to pin troops. I tested a house rule my last game which I will share here; each pair of "5s" rolled also result in a pin check. Example, I roll a 2,5,5,5,6. The 2 is a miss and the 6 is a hit. The pair of 5s result in a pin check which is adjudicated before I resolve the "6". Martin would tell me this will result in too many pins. YMMV.
End Game At the end of your turn you roll a D6 which a running sum total is kept. Once the total hits 36 the game is over. Simple, quick effective.
Less Favorite Points
The pre game points and piggy chase are not great for a historical solo gamer. That said I think for Martin's stated goal they hit the mark. Also, in fairness, no other game has anything like this that I have seen so it really isn't a negative.
The Armor combat system. It isn't bad just compared to the infantry system it feels clunky. It isn't any worse than O Group it just isn't slick like the infantry system. For instance I could see no mention of being hull down. Also I have been spoiled by Battlefront WW II armor system which is brilliant. I should add here that the C+C system for the armor is very good.
Overall
Martin has well achieved his goal with a fun game that can be played in two hours using reasonable tactics between two players. His pre game hits the mark for two evenly matched companies having a challenging game. As stated it is easy to use this game for more historical engagements as well. The is simple but not simplistic. Everything is well thought out. It is much harder to design a simple game covering a complex topic than a complex game. Simple, quick, fun! It has become my go to for infantry actions. I can give it no higher praise than that; bravo Martin!
Joe
No comments:
Post a Comment