"PBI (Poor Bloody Infantry) by Peter Pig - Opinions Sought" Topic

Hi,
Does anyone have any opinions good or bad about PBI for a beginner.

Ultimately I don't like the grid layout but I can see how the simplification of movement is appealing especially to beginners.

I was given the previous set of rules, not done anything with them yet. But before I do I see that there is a later version and a companion book – Company Architect.

What do you think of PBI in general?

And are the latest rules an improvement over the previous ones – enough to upgrade?

And what does the Company Architect do and is it worth getting?

Cheers,
Nigel

Personally I never liked PBI. It was just too abstract for my tastes. I use Through Mud and Blood by Two Fat Ladies with my 28mm figures and have enjoyed that. What scale are you wanting to play, both figure and game size – skirmish, company regimental, divisional? The rules you use will be determined by those factors.

I've played the previous edition. I liked a lot about how the rules played, including the grid. What got a bit tedious were the types of reaction fire and return fire.

If your little-lead-dudes shoot at a square, the target square's troops roll to see if they return fire, if yes then this gets resolved. If your LLDs then move within a couple of squares of an enemy occupied square, the opponent gets to roll for reaction fire, and this must be resolved if it occurs. With lots of troops on the table, this got boring for me.

Didn't buy the new edition, so can't comment on that.

I play and like PBI. Personally I prefer the second edition rules versus the current third edition. the second edition rules were cleaner. The third edition fixes things that were not broke (IMO) and adds things I didn't feel were worth the complication.

Also, the pre-game "reconnaissance" phase can be tedious for some folk and there are quicker "reconnaissance" systems available on the PBI yahoo group (rules for the common man) and other web sites.

But all in all, PBI is a quick game, fun, and does give you some realistic challenges like deciding how much direct fire vs. close assault is correct and whether you should shoot your opponent or maneuver against him. PBI also has some unique mechanisms from bringing your troops on the board that make you think about tactics, terrain, and who you are fighting.

Thanks for the info.

So this is what I'm after.

I'm lucky enough to play with a long established wargaming group who have tons of resources to put on games from all sorts of eras. So I am spoiled in that respect.

What I want is to start building a game at home that my son and I can play. Interested in all eras but feel WWII would appeal most to him.

I have skirmish rules Bolt Action and Chain of Command and I will do something with them, but I want to do something less skirmishy, Rapid Fire for example but I am overwealmed by how much (time, effort and money) it is to put together armies – so I want something that can start small but not skirmishy.

Scalewise, I suspect I am thinking 10mm, 15mm or 20mm.

Cheers,

Nigel

20mm is the one true scale for WW2, of course. I suggest Battlegroup WW2 by Iron Fist Publishing. Especially suited for 1-on-1 gaming, although it is equally at home with multiple players per side, IMO.

This will not suprise anyone but I really like PBI. The new rules are actually a bit more streamlined than previous editions. Morale is slicker for a start. The comment about return fire and opportunity fire (where you get to fire in your opponents turn) is interesting. For me it keeps both players engaged in the turn rather than a straight forward I go/you go system. If you shoot at the enemy, there is a good chance that they will shoot back at you.

The armour rules are slick and have been copied by others.

The asset system is great to add period flavour like off table artillery, snipers, sneaky movement and brave officers!

The grid system is very useful for ease of play and quickness.

It feels like it is a company game and a company fight.

Every company is differently played to its strengths and it actually shows why weapons and units were deployed like they were

Take a gander at this:
link

Command and colors WWI

Good range of opinions. Vigilant, if Mud and Blood works well for your WW2 games that is great. Without a grid players often fuss about measurements which do not apply to the level of command in real life. By this i mean , that a platoon commander would say "go and occupy the farm" rather than "make sure the rifle guy is in range of the house corner and remember to use the cover. Also make sure the second rifle man stands to his left so as not to obscure his sight line. He should be able to see through that gap between the post and the hedge end"

The micromanagement often put into rules makes the player a corporal, sergeant, lieutenant and company commander. Instead the rules should put the player in a specific command role (only my opinion i accept).
I really like the grid system, but accept that is a matter of taste. If you dislike grids then PBI may not be for you? If you do decide to give it ago then do start with only a platoon a side to assimilate how platoons work. PBI is very real life based so will allow you to put down pinning fire with your LMG teams and then move up in the same turn to launch your flank assault. The turn is sequential instead of simultaneous. Therefore each action happens before the next action takes effect. It might also depend on how young your son is. PBI does require some holistic consideration.

I predict that when GW brings out it's first grid based battle game many will say "I always liked grids and never had a doubt!".

Good luck with your games Nigel.

Lot of WW1 recommendations. If you use WW1rules for WW2 then that is fine, but I think the two wars have quite different "flavours". YMMV of course and that is your right.

Absolutely love PBI! One of the best things about PBI (in fact, all of the Rules For The Common Man stable share this) is that there is always a little pre-battle game that creates a scenario. There are no equal points meeting engagements to create "balanced" games that so many other rules rely on. Instead, there is always an attacker, and always an outnumbered defender.

Love the grid. As Martin says, it eliminates the fiddly measuring of ranges, and helps speed the game along.

Love the buckets of dice approach. Not only does this help even out randomness, but there is a real tactile "feel" to firepower. When you grab 30 or so dice for a pair of MG42 teams opening up on some hapless Russians in a field, it really makes you appreciate the appalling rate of fire of those weapons.

Love the fog of war. Not all your troops will move, or follow orders most turns.

Love the armour rules. Not only are they simple and effective, but it is quite clear that PBI is indeed an infantry game, with armour support. Armour is powerful, but without proper infantry support can be quite vulnerable.

Like all rules, there are some weaker points, in my opinion. The game isn't too good at historical scenarios. It is really a "turn up and play" type of game.

The third edition has some "humorous" section introductions that some find irritating. And speaking of third edition, the differences between second and third are relatively minor. I have played a lot more second edition, so I think if I absolutely had to choose, I'd take that ruleset, but perhaps only because I know it better. The few games I've played of the newest edition I've quite enjoyed.

And the Company Architect book is simply the army lists. Very, very comprehensive. You'll need both books if you want to play.

I played PBI (ver 2) a few times. Found some concepts worthwhile but actual play was somewhat disappointing. Seemed that infantry fire was pretty ineffective and HtH assaults became the norm.

I would suggest 5Core Company Command. Well developed and organized rules that are very inexpensive, and has a simple but not simplistic combat system. Allows for fairly fast battles without lots of specialized rules to remember.
There is more discussion of this ruleset in the message boards.

Tony S

That is very helpful.

So you rate v2 over v3. Do you know anywhere that describes the differences.

Would the Company Architect work with v2 or is it specific to v3.

Cheers,

Nigel

I haven't come across any definite list of the differences between the versions. Off the top of my head, and a quick comparison of the two QRS sheets, morale is a little cleaner in 3rd edition, and opportunity fire is a little more limited in 3rd edition. I did skim through both rules this evening actually.

The concept of company assets is much expanded in the new edition. It's much better than the earlier edition actually. It gives the various nationalities and time periods a more accurate feel.

Terrain set up also follows the more modern RFCM style in the new edition. It's more regimented than the earlier version. To me it seems designed more for tournament play, but then again there are always players who abuse the terrain set up rules. So perhaps its not a bad thing, although it might lead to somewhat similar tables.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, I was perhaps favouring second edition over the new one, as I really enjoyed the earlier edition and was more familiar with it. Honestly, I was nonplussed when I heard of plans to revamp PBI, as I felt "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". That, and the quirky humour, might have also led me in that direction.

Some time has passed though, and after comparing the two rulesets a bit more tonight, I think I'm leaning slightly the opposite way now! Sorry to waffle, but I hadn't looked at third edition since they came out and we played them once or twice.
There is some controversy as some players are apparently exploiting diagonal shooting as the new edition no longer allows opportunity fire against diagonals. I think that odd rules loophole is a bit overblown. In the greater scheme of things, I don't think it really affects the game, even if your opponent tries such gamey tactics, as there are a lot of mitigating factors that limit it.

And sadly, that type of thing doesn't do anything to convince players that are already negatively disposed towards a square grid to change their minds!

Overall though, the differences between the editions are minor hairsplitting. Third is a small evolution of second edition. Try the second edition; if you really like it, buy the third edition. If you detest it, the third edition will not change your mind at all.

As for the Company Architect book, it is also a big step forward. A LOT more lists, including (and I'd forgotten about them) some lists bringing PBI forward to the Korean War. (Another point in favour of third edition especially the addition of three specific Canadian companies! Yes, I'm biased) You could adapt them for the earlier edition, by using the aggression levels from the more generic second edition lists I guess. And you'd miss out on the new assets mechanisms.

I'd suggest trying out that second edition that you have, and see if you like them. I quite like them, as you may have guessed. As a matter of fact, we're going to be playing them this Sunday!

I picked this up on the General Board so hadn't realised that it was a question about using WW1 rules for WW2. I use Corner of Hell for WW2 skirmish games (works well for late 20th century too), Blitzkrieg Commander V2 for higher level games. Still don't like the grid based system of PBI, just my opinion but it seems too abstract to be a reflection of combat at any level. If you like it then use it.

Err..

It isn't a question about using WW1 rules for WW2. Bit of misunderstanding there Jim?
PBI cannot be abstract because it has a ground scale ie 60m to 1 square. Abstract would mean that the game actions bear no resemblance to real life happenings. Every weapon in PBI uses a ground scale limit to effective shooting.

You are well within your rights to dislike PBI (and you do) but do be clear and less dogmatic please.

What is the ground scale of "corner of hell" and "blitzkrieg commander"? I assume you can tell us what that it is?
Rules with no ground scale are abstract. Rules with a ground scale cannot be totally abstract even if you don't like them.
. If you do not like grids that is fine Jim.

No ground scale= abstract.

Might also direct the original poster to the short tutorials and demos on YouTube linked from the Pig site. Found them useful. Tempted to add these to my stable of rules. Lot of stuff for around $50 USD and don't need a boatload of figs/vehicles to play.

As an aside- are there particular rules for bocage?

Hello Brucka
No specific bocage rules.
For what it is worth my suggestion would be that they stop line of sight unless you are in contact. This would be applied to vehicles and foot. you coud count bocage as closed cover but it might make it a bit too effective?

Martin
It has been a while since I have played PBI, but when I did it was just WW1 and I don't remember anything about ground scale in it. You fired into squares which could hold a limited amount of forces. If that has changed then I apologise. The rules I mentioned do have ground scales, though I don't have them to hand so I can't tell you what they are. I don't understand why my dislike of a grid based system is being dogmatic, but if you want clarity I think that measuring figure to figure is a better reflection of reality than from 1 square to another which could be a range difference of up to 60 metres. Again, just my opinion. I understand that you have a proprietary interest in the rules, and they have a strong following, my congratulations, but that doesn't mean you have to be snarky with people who disagree with you.

@brucka

Thanks, for the steer. I have already looked at those several times and they are useful but don't address the differences between v2 and V3

@all

I have no idea where talk of WWI came from, I never asked about it. BTW I already have Command and Colours The Great War board game and the Tank expansions. I really like the C&C games – but this is the worst of the range in my opinion. Much prefer Ancients and Napoleonics. Come to that I prefer Memoir 44 to The Great War.

@ Tony S and Martin Goddard

So my understanding is that there is not a whole lot of difference between v2 and v3.

And that the Company Architect can be used for v2 but would need some adaptation.

Is that correct?

Cheers,

Nigel

Martin

Profuse apologies. Please ignore my posts. I have just realised that I have been confusing your rules with Square Bashing. Blame it on advancing years or looking at too many different rule sets. I shall look out for PBI next time I am at a show and have a look at the system to see how the grid system works. Again apologies for my mistake.

Stephen

Very gracious of you Stephen. Thank you.