2025 games count.

[flamingpig0]

Mexican Revolution using La Cucaracha rules

[paulr]

20mm Home brew WWII rules - somewhere in France 1941 4 players 5 hours over two evenings
An interesting meeting engagement between British and Germans

28mm Lion Rampant - WoTR 4 games 2 players about 4.5 hours in total
Four learning games for me organised by a fellow member of the Hutt Miniature Wargames club. The rules play very well and there is quite a bit of subtlety in the buckets of dice
We will be playing again in a few weeks

[pierre the shy]

28mm Lion Rampant - WoTR 4 games 2 players about 4.5 hours in total
Four learning games for me organised by a fellow member of the Hutt Miniature Wargames club. The rules play very well and there is quite a bit of subtlety in the buckets of dice
We will be playing again in a few weeks

I watched some of these games for a while and thought how straightforward it would be to base up some of the 28mm medievals that I have hiding somewhere in my house. A local company makes suitable MDF bases for reasonable money so my Burgundians will finally be able to have at their Swiss opponents after waiting for.....lets just say some time to get on the table 

What could possibly go wrong???....oh "buckets" of dice are required, with Lion Rampant needing higher numbers to hit\undertake actions, NOT something I'm renowned for.....B****r, foiled again!   

[Chris Pringle]

Nice report Chris 

Cheers, Will!

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

BKC IV Western Desert, DaK Vs 8th Army.
Major DaK win

[Steve J]

A stuart Asquith scenario using BPII and broadly Napoleonic.

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Wednesday a teaching game of BKC IV for two more clubmates, think they enjoyed it, one has ordered an army, the other has dug out his unpainted one!
Friday I ended up at Aylesbury Wargames Club to join in a four sided Renaissance ReG game. Also great fun, lovely to catch up with some old friends too.

[pierre the shy]

Played 2 games of ACW using Black Powder based rules over the last couple of evenings.

First game started on Friday and the session ended with honours fairly even, but the Confederate left wing was completely blitzed within two moves when we resumed last night.

Reset and played again using the same forces, this time the Confederate right wing was in deep trouble by the end of the session so we called that game a Union success as well 

Back to FK&P next weekend. 

[Chris Pringle]

A feast of games when 8 of us met up for a 4-day weekend:
Gettysburg (BBB)
Gravelotte (BBB)
Dorking (BBB)
WWII Pacific naval (Nimitz)
WWII North Atlantic naval (Nimitz)
France 1940 (O Group)
Dorking 1940 (O Group)

Photo-AAR here:
https://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com/2025/10/a-double-dose-of-dorking.html

[fred.]

Nice!

One two of those isn't like the others.

Edit - read the blog now - more than nice, 4 days in France centred around gaming - very very nice!!

[sunjester]

Quite a few games over the last couple of weeks.
1 x Reign in Hell


1 x Guards of Traitors Toll
2 x Fear and Faith (fantasy/horror from Ganesha Games)
1 x Mutants and Death Ray Guns (post-appoc also Ganesha Games)

[pierre the shy]

2 more games....an Anglo/Italian clash in the Med using GQ2 which ended up being a very bloody affair with two RN and one Italian cruisers being sunk, another Italian cruiser crippled and most destroyers badly shot up. I did manage to actually sink something with a torpedo for a change, though the Sheffield was in no fit state to manuvere by that stage...   

Last night we played BBDBA, with 1415 English and Low Country allies fighting a French/Burgundian/Scots combination force. The Scots managed to eventually put the English right wing to flight without loosing a single element, but the French and Burgundians were trashed by the centre and English left wing despite their knights breaking through the first line opposite the English camp.

Paul was moved to quote parts of the Bard's "Henry the Fifth" after the game  

The French swore next time that they would choose to use dismounted knights....

[Chris Pringle]

2 more games....an Anglo/Italian clash in the Med using GQ2 which ended up being a very bloody affair with two RN and one Italian cruisers being sunk, another Italian cruiser crippled and most destroyers badly shot up. I did manage to actually sink something with a torpedo for a change, though the Sheffield was in no fit state to manuvere by that stage...   

Well done! A general question: are most naval wargames too bloody, with too little incentive to break off early and preserve the fleet?

[Raider4]

Well done! A general question: are most naval wargames too bloody, with too little incentive to break off early and preserve the fleet?

Aren't most miniature wargames like that? Our tiny troops fight on long after they would in real life?

Frequently, I think, because very few wargame rules allow - or reward - a successful fighting withdrawal.

[Ithoriel]

Well done! A general question: are most naval wargames too bloody, with too little incentive to break off early and preserve the fleet?

Naval warfare does seem to be a bloodier affair than land battles, especially as firepower becomes more deadly and battles occur more often out of sight of land. Even more so once aircraft, submarines and radar are involved.

One of the reasons I like campaign games, even though they are hard to set up and then maintain, is that it gives a reason to "advance smartly to the rear" when it is obvious that victory is not an option.

[pierre the shy]

Well done! A general question: are most naval wargames too bloody, with too little incentive to break off early and preserve the fleet?

Some games certainly can be like that.

We tend to play either specific scenarios or campaigns so some of our games at least will have scenario specific rules on such things as the amount of damage a ship can take before it must at least attempt to withdraw. Of course the opposition will no-doubt attempt to prevent that.

This normally covers heavier units such as battleships and cruisers, but can cover any ship.

I think that in some naval games that I have seen players do get a little too aggressive if there are no limitations put on them. e.g. "I have command of this destroyer flotilla therefore I must get within torpedo range, even if it means running the gauntlet of very heavy enemy fire".

Some rulesets attempt to control this via a morale system, but that's not a method that I feel particularly works well, at least in 20th century battles. Age of Sail and eariler period battles are a slightly different story in that regard I think.

I try to encourage my players to think in terms of what an actual commander would do in a particular situation and act accordingly, but as I'm sure you have found as when putting together your BBB rules there are some "you want to do WHAT?" moments that players try that you just can't adequately cover in any set of core or scenario rules   

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

I remember being told I was doing very well in an 1859 Campaign, because despite my infantry taking a pounding, I never committed the light cavalry so I could cover retreats or pursue!

Think it's hard, some rules even have 'last turn stoppers' to discourage the 'oh hell, it's the last turn, throw it all in' moment!

Ships and Spaceships do often have that 'fight to the last' feeling, but I think motivation or morale for unusual orders might be needed.

Hmmm... 

[fred.]

Playing like the (or a) historical commander is fine as an instruction - but ultimately if the scenario is presented as a game, then the players will play the scenario victory conditions. 

Which means the victory conditions should support what an historical commander would care about. And the rules too should support/reward historical tactics by the players. 

Which is much easier to write as an approach, than to codify into rules!

One of the classic examples in 'truck recon' in WWII (and later) games. Where trucks are very cheap usually, and once they have dropped off some troops aren't much more use. So sending them forward to 'explore' can be rewarding to the owning player. This was never was done deliberately by actual commanders - most times trucks had standing orders to return to their depot after dropping troops off, and often only to drop them off well out of the combat zone. 

But it is very hard to stop the last turn throw everything in approach. And sometimes this is valid for a scenario, but often force preservation is much more important to the historical commander than it is to the player. 

[pierre the shy]

I entirely agree Fred, victory conditions are really important and the rules should support historical tactics.

We used to play a lot of Spearhead and Modern Spearhead. Recce troops, especially post-war Soviet units, never seemed to have a long or happy life as per the MSH rules.....it was usually "death by recce".

IIRC someone came up with some very simple house rules that made them a lot more effective in their intended role.

[Last Hussar]

Fred has a good point. Thinking about it, (never had to worry about it) you could abstract the trucks.

"Move [fast but rubbish defence] until you want [good defence]. You can NOT go back to Fast"