"Review of Pulse of Battle rules by Brent Oman" Topic

I have added a detailed review of these rules to my blog. They are based upon the mechanics used in Brent's earlier "Field of Battle" rules for 1700 -1900.

Review:
link

Introductory Scenario for the rules (Battle of the Trebia):
link

AAR for the same battle, heavily annotated (2 parts)
link
link

Hopefully it will be of interest to some!

Peter

Fantastic review. Thanks for doing this.

Mark

got my copy, and it looks great.

They look interesting, still unsure about all the randomness we feel we need to have in games….

"still unsure about all the randomness we feel we need to have in games…"

If I were you, given that statement, I'd definitely not try PoB, or any of my games, for that matter.

I would be glad to live in your world, where apparently there are no random ocurrences beyond your control.

Brent

Re randomness, I enjoy the challenge, and NOT knowing excatly what's likely to happen from the get go. Different strokes and all that. Although a lot less "random" than standard Piquet games, there is still plenty of that involved in Pulse of Battle. So, if at least trying to handle that doesn't appeal to you, Brent is right, probably not the set for you. No big deal – there are a great many choices out there, right!

Glad you found it useful Mark. Certainly the combined posts should give you a pretty good idea what you're getting yourself into before deciding to try them or not!

I guess that is the point combat is uncertain.

I'm hoping to try out POB next week. Romans v Macedonians so the special rules will get an outing.

Nice review and AAR thanks.

I would be glad to live in your world, where apparently there are no random ocurrences beyond your control.

Not being one to let drive-by condescension stand on it's own, I'll just note that I think you're confusing *your* kind of randomness with the *only* kind of randomness that can either exist or be meaningful, which is far from an indication of a flexible mind.

I would be glad to live in your world, where apparently only the types of random occurrences which you personally sanction are acceptable. Sheesh.

CAT -

Really? Drive by condescension? After all, he was commenting on a game that I created, wrote and published. I think I've got a dog in the fight.

You don't believe in entirely random things happening? Driven in traffic lately? Weather? Employees doing things that you had no way to prepare for? Unpredictable demands from customers? And that's just in our peaceful world, not in the combat world.

Did I mention anything about my sanctioning of random ocurrences? No – I just believe that it is unrealistic to expect that randomness doesn't exist, and doesn't impact us.

I'm not sure what "randomness" he's referring to – combat results? Nothing new there in game rules. Cards for the turn sequence? Don't get me started on rigid event sequencing vs. variable sequencing.

@CAT – Thanks CAT for the support.

@Peter – good review as always your web blog is always a port of call for me as we have similar interests (1809 for example).

@ PKay – I feel some dynamics have no need for randomness others do.

I wasn't knocking your rules far from it, however, your comment has left me somewhat cold….

I have played the excellent Ager Sanguinis and was looking for something new PoB was of interest.

I see it's started a debate and is not for this topic, apologies for all concerned that was not my intention.

Yeah Ager Sanguinis is pretty good.

Marcus – Thanks!

Brent is a freind and a good guy. So are Mark, and Christopher (CAT). Brent probably came off too touchy, but of course the rules and concepts are his baby, and it's understandable to be defensive out them. I have to work at suppressing defensiveness as well in similar circumstances, as I am sure most of us do!

I agree, another thread would be better for discussion of the roles and application randomness in wargaming, for which there is abundant grist for milling. Indeed, a conversation probably best had over a glass or two of one's libation(s) of choice!

Peter

My "touchiness" is not directed at Marcus, but entirely the result of the post by the self appointed "drive by condescension" regulator, CAT.

If you liked Ager Sanguinis, I would suspect that you'd like PoB. I'm still not clear about your comment regarding randomness, however.

I love the FOB/POB games. The randomness really works for me as it's not really that random over the entire course of the game as compared to the original PK game.

But man what is it about running the franchise that makes people so sensitive. I thought Bob Jones had posted there for a second.

I like the rules and thought the review a really good summary/account. Without a doubt, I'm biased. I'm a dyed in the wool PK player and tinkerer. For me it's more a question of should I stick with Archon (the "older" PK ancients set) or switch to PoB. There's still some uncertainty in PoB. As examples: a unit's starting combat ability can fall within a limited range depending on a dice roll; Command ability can be similarly varied(some bad leaders aren't that bad and some exceptional leaders are even more so)and so on. However and
comparatively, PoB reduces variation (notably in card deck construction) and equalises initiative. It's squeakier and cleaner than "old" PK. I like to vary my card decks more but I like less extremes in initiative. I also like the PoB troop type classifications better.

Cincinatus, I suspect its because the usual suspects make the same predictable comments, and we hope for greater randomness.

You may be pleased to hear I have joined a contemplation circle and forsworn any further critique of dullards…on Saturdays, after a full moon.

It is good to know the Sighing Finn is still with us. I had heard he was seriously injured in a Tango hall in Helsinki.

I'm afraid that, even after all these years, I'm still far too American to have succumbed to the perilous allure of Finnish Tango. Pursued in it's proper form, it demands a unique mix of tolerance for lethally heady brew and grandiosely stiff movements that only naturally appear in Finns and Ents.

However, it appears I have violated my Great Oath of Eh – which is the resolution I made a few years ago to just shrug my shoulders and mutter "Eh" instead of entering into internet debates. In my defense, I have to manage graduate students, my wife has to manage kindergarten students, and together we have to manage a teenage son and daughter … and sometimes adding wargamers to the mix seems a bit much.

As the assorted worthies here know, I'm actually a long time (if critical) fan of the PK system. I still have the battered remnants of my first edition on the shelf, ditto for various editions of Archon etc., and just last week I pulled down Brent's Theatre of War to see if I could use it for Stonewall's Valley Campaign – although I have to admit I haven't actually tried Die Fighting yet, Bob. I honestly think that the adversarial history of the franchise is an impediment, and in the Biz I would call what just happened turning a potential Teaching Moment into a Push Back.

Peter has always been a great proponent for the system, and particularly for FoB – he's had me on the fence for some time now with FoB, despite knowing I would face an uphill battle amongst my small group here. I hope that he understands that I fell off the wagon, and there are certainly no hard feelings involved.

And with that Washington Apology (which is to say more logia than apo), I will wish everyone well and return to my contemplation of the Great Oath of Eh.

Cheers,

Christopher

Well laid out thoughts Christopher. Thank you.

martin

@PK Inc please by all means drop me an email at trajanic AT gmail DOT com happy to discuss my thoughts.

And I agree, I think it's a great idea and would be useful for a new topic discussing the merits or otherwise of randomness in games.

If I wish to purchase a set of PoB where would be the best place to purchase them from?

Marcus – email sent!

You can purchase directly from us via our website at piquetwargames.com , or from Lancashire Games or On Military Matters.

Is there a set of cards available for these rules?

As a special, I offered high quality cards to those that pre-ordered. I'll re-issue the cards based on demand moving forward. I'll probably do some sort of pre-order/special order for them.

The custom cards Brent refers to are seen in Part 2 of the AAR that I posted above (each pack has 2 decks in it). They are well worth it if you plan to play the game more than a few times. The rules come with utilitarian, cut out B&W cards printed on basic card stock which are more than sufficient for play, if unlovely!

Here a question and not a comment--Where on the spectrum does Pulse of Battle fit in relative to the modification/simplification of Band of Brothers by Hostile Realms?

HR simplifies Piquet/BOB using the principles of Field of Battle. Is Pulse of Battle similar to HR?

PoB does not follow the HR family tree. I wrote it completely independently, following basic Field of Battle mechanics and adding/changing where necessary to fit my view of ancient battles.

I would say that although there are some shared mechanics, Pulse of Battle is quite distinct and different from both BoB (or Archon) and Hostile Realms.

I have played the excellent Ager Sanguinis

Ager Sanguinis is very much a variation of FoB, PoB is a developed FoB, so it'll probably float your boat.

From reading the rules (first game in the near future) POB is exactly what this FOB fan was hoping for. I've seen HR and wish it were more like POB/FOB than what it is. I'm sure HR has its fans (just like regular PK) but for me, the POB/FOB system is the top of the food chain.

Hostile Realms was done at the time when FoB 1st edition was brand new (indeed, it was all but done as a classic Piquet based game when the decision was made to adopt FoB style sequence decks and impetus, thus necessitating major rewrites and retesting). It would have been extremely difficult to have used FoB as it stood then (strictly horse and musket rules, 1st generation) as the basis for a Fantasy set, most of which of course are essentially ancient/medieval rules at their heart with the fantasy/magic elements mixed in.

Pulse of Battle certainly could be used as the basis of a related Fantasy set, and there are some working on this unofficially. Personally, I'll probably stick with HR. This is hardly surprising, considering that I wrote it! :-)