Creating a Retinue for Écorcheurs! - Jean Quiéret dit Rifflart

Arms of Jean Quiéret dit Rifflart

Ermine, three fleurs-de-lis au pied coupé Gules

Following on from creating Sir Robert Babthorpe's retinue, I wanted to create one of the French retinues who might have been present at the time of Agincourt and maybe faced Sir Robert. After all we don't want Sir Robert standing in some French field all on his own?

As before, the intention isn't to claim that I've somehow reconstructed an exact medieval retinue, but to start with what we actually know and then use the evidence for French armies in 1415 to fill in some of the gaps.

For this one I have chosen Jean Quiéret dit Rifflart, écuyer, a member of the lesser nobility of Ponthieu and Picardy who is associated with the French forces at Agincourt. 

Unlike Babthorpe, where the English records give us a remarkably good idea of the actual composition of his twenty man retinue, there is no surviving muster for Jean so there is inevitably rather more "reconstruction" involved here. That said, the surviving French records give us some useful clues about what a small French retinue of the period might have looked like.

Jean Quiéret dit Rifflart

The Quiéret family were established in Ponthieu, in northern France, and several members of the wider family appear in connection with Agincourt. Jean is recorded as Jean Quiéret dit Rifflart, although identifying medieval men from names alone can sometimes be a dangerous business as they are often inaccurately recorded.

A modern genealogical entry styles Jean as an écuyer. I have not found a contemporary muster or armourial that independently confirms that rank for Jean himself, so I am treating écuyer as the best-supported current identification rather than as absolutely proven. In English terms this makes him an esquire rather than a knight, so I have deliberately avoided calling him 'Sir Jean'.

There is, tantalisingly, a Rifflart mentioned in accounts of the attack on the English baggage during the Agincourt battle. It would be rather spiffing if this was our Jean, but I haven't found enough evidence to confidently say that it was.

For the purposes of the retinue I am simply treating Jean as one of the lesser French fighting gentlemen associated with the campaign. This is actually rather useful for what I am trying to achieve here, I don't particularly want every retinue to be commanded by a Duke or one of the great lords of France. Jean seems exactly the sort of man who could plausibly be found travelling through Picardy with a handful of armoured companions and assorted armed followers.

The Campaign in France and Agincourt

Jean appears amongst the men associated with the French side at Agincourt, but unlike Babthorpe I haven't found an individual muster telling us how many men-at-arms or missile troops he actually brought with him. That means there is no French equivalent here of Babthorpe's wonderfully convenient four men-at-arms and fifteen archers, it seems the French had a very lass à faire approach to record keeping.

What we can do is look at the wider French evidence. The Medieval Soldier Project's work on the French army of 1415 shows captains serving with men-at-arms and gens de trait (“men of the projectile/shot”). Importantly, the surviving records identify both archers and crossbowmen and individual 1415 entries include mounted archers as well as mounted and foot crossbowmen.

That is useful as a mixed body of bowmen and crossbowmen is entirely reasonable for the period, even though the exact mixture I have chosen for Jean is necessarily conjectural.

Pavises also fit the wider northern French military world of the period. Tournai's accounts record Robert Campin being paid to paint standards, pennons and pavises for the city's crossbowmen in 1414 and again in 1415. That does not prove that Jean's own men carried pavises at Agincourt, but it does show that they were very much part of the equipment of contemporary French and Low Countries crossbow forces.

Arms of Jean Quiéret dit Rifflart

I haven't found a contemporary armourial specifically attributing arms to Jean himself in 1415, so I'm treating them as a family-based reconstruction rather than pretending we know precisely what Jean painted on his shield at Agincourt.

Building the Retinue

Without Jean's actual muster we need to do rather more reconstruction than we did with Babthorpe. I wanted the force to have a well-armoured household core, but also to make use of the French archers, crossbowmen and pavisiers that appear in the wider evidence.

I have therefore settled on Jean, five other heavily equipped household men, four crossbowmen, two archers, pavisiers and eight other armed retainers. Which, rather conveniently, gives us twenty men, almost as if the French had Écorcheurs in mind too.

The crossbowmen and archers are not an attempt to reproduce a lost Quiéret muster. They are a gaming reconstruction based on troop types we know were present in French forces in 1415. The same is true of the pavisiers. They can work alongside the crossbowmen or armed with a spear or hand weapon, can operate as an armed retainer.

Jean and some of the men-at-arms can be mounted, although they would normally dismount for a set-piece fight.

Enguerrand

I've also included Enguerrand as Jean's second Leader. Unlike William Callowe in Babthorpe's retinue, I don't have documentary evidence placing an Enguerrand specifically in Jean's service. This is therefore one of the deliberately fictional elements. There are men called Enguerrand amongst the northern French military community of the period, so the name is perfectly plausible, but I'm not going to manufacture a historical identity for him that I can't prove.

For our purposes he's simply one of Jean's experienced men-at-arms and the man most likely to keep everybody moving when Jean is otherwise occupied, so I gave him a new trait of Steadfast.

The Retinue

As with Babthorpe, I rather like having some uncertainty about exactly how well equipped the individual men are. Jean himself is obviously well equipped, but for the remaining men-at-arms I've allowed some variation.

Likewise the crossbowmen, archers, pavisiers and armed retainers can vary between Unarmoured and Part-Armoured.

So my proposed retinue looks like this:

Quiéret dit Rifflart, Jean. Fully-Armoured. Mounted. D8 Quality Die. 2CD in combat. Leader, Chivalrous, 75% chance of Puissant trait.

Enguerrand. Part-Armoured, 66% chance of being Fully-Armoured. Mounted. D8 Quality Die. 1CD in combat. 66% chance of 2 CD. Leader, Steadfast (see below).

Standard Bearer. Part-Armoured. 50% chance of being Fully-Armoured. Mounted. D6 Quality Die. 1CD in combat.

3 Men-at-Arms. Part-Armoured. 75% chance of being Fully-Armoured. Mounted. Sword. D6 Quality Die. 1CD in combat.

4 Crossbowmen. Unarmoured. 50% chance of being Part-Armoured. Crossbow. D6 Quality Die. 1CD in combat.

2 Archers. Unarmoured. 33% chance of being Part-Armoured. Bow. D6 Quality Die. 1CD in combat.

8 Armed Retainers. Unarmoured, 50% chance of being Part-Armoured. 50% chance of Pavise. Spear or pole arm. D6 Quality Die. 1CD in combat.

Steadfast - This individual is an experienced, calm mind in the midst of battle.  When this figure is required to make a Rally or Faltering test, it may re-roll a failed Quality Die roll. The second result must be accepted.

I get the sense that Jean's retinue should have a heavily armoured core surrounded by a much more mixed body of fighting men, with the small group of crossbowmen, archers and pavisiers giving it a distinctly French appearance. The pavises in particular should make it look very different on the table from Babthorpe's mass of longbows.

If you would prefer a non-chance based retinue then this would be (I know wargamers still love a list after all!):

Quiéret dit Rifflart, Jean. Fully-Armoured. Mounted. D8 Quality Die. 2CD in combat. Leader, Chivalrous, Puissant trait.

Enguerrand. Fully-Armoured. Mounted. D8 Quality Die. 2 CD. Leader, Steadfast (see below).

Standard Bearer. Fully-Armoured. Mounted. D6 Quality Die. 1CD in combat.

2 Men-at-Arms. Fully-Armoured. Mounted. Sword. D6 Quality Die. 1CD in combat.

1 Men-at-Arms. Part-Armoured. Mounted. Sword. D6 Quality Die. 1CD in combat.

2 Crossbowmen. Unarmoured. Crossbow. D6 Quality Die. 1CD in combat.

2 Crossbowmen. Part-Armoured. Crossbow. D6 Quality Die. 1CD in combat.

2 Archers. Unarmoured. Bow. D6 Quality Die. 1CD in combat.

2 Armed Retainers. Unarmoured, Spear or pole arm. D6 Quality Die. 1CD in combat.

2 Armed Retainers. Unarmoured. Pavise. Spear or pole arm. D6 Quality Die. 1CD in combat.

2 Armed Retainers. Part-Armoured. Spear or pole arm. D6 Quality Die. 1CD in combat.

2 Armed Retainers. Part-Armoured. Pavise. Spear or pole arm. D6 Quality Die. 1CD in combat.

Steadfast - This individual is an experienced, calm mind in the midst of battle.  When this figure is required to make a Rally or Faltering test, it may re-roll a failed Quality Die roll. The second result must be accepted.

A final thought is that period French records do mention mounted archers and crossbowmen, so feel free to make the them mounted if you have the figures.

The precise numbers are obviously my invention, but the combination of troop types isn't and should feel different Babthorpe's retinue. 

Enjoy!

Sources & Further Reading

Medieval Soldier Project - French Troops Table - Individual records for French archers and crossbowmen in 1415.

Jean Quiéret dit Rifflart - Geneanet - Modern genealogical entry styling Jean as écuyer, used cautiously.

Jean Quiéret / Agincourt material - Genealogie Québec - Genealogical material associating Jean with Agincourt and drawing on the Nobiliaire de Ponthieu.

Armorial des familles de Picardie - Quiéret family arms used as the basis for the heraldic reconstruction.

Robert Campin - Tournai archival records - Evidence for standards, pennons and pavises painted for Tournai crossbowmen in 1414-15.

Monstrelet - Extrait des Chroniques - Chronicle evidence for French archers and crossbowmen at Agincourt.

Medieval Soldier Project - The French Army in 1415 - French army organisation, musters, men-at-arms and gens de trait.

Creating a Retinue for Écorcheurs! - Sir Robert Babthorpe

Arms of Robert Babthorpe

Sable, a chevron Or between three crescents Ermine

Recently we have been playing quite a few games of Écorcheurs! by Rob Jones. I backed the Kickstarter and now after a few sessions I felt I wanted to create my first retinue. So using a few on-line resources to assist me in where to start research I have been able to identify a hopefully realistic retinue that fought at Agincourt (on the winning side too!). 

Sir Robert Babthorpe

Robert Babthorpe seems to have originated from the Yorkshire village that bore his family name. By 1403 he was already a King's Esquire, and over the following decade he became increasingly closely associated with the Lancastrian royal household. His marriage to Eleanor Waterton brought another useful connection. The Watertons were themselves closely associated with the Lancastrian establishment, and Babthorpe's own career increasingly became that of a professional royal servant rather than simply that of a Yorkshire landowner.

In 1415 he joined Henry V's expedition to France and this is where he becomes particularly interesting for Écorcheurs!, because we actually have a remarkably good idea of the size of his retinue of four other men-at-arms and fifteen archers, and all twenty men were recorded as having fought at Agincourt. 

Which is rather conveniently almost as if Henry V had organised his army with Écorcheurs! in mind.

The Campaign in France and Agincourt

Babthorpe himself was still described as an esquire when the campaign began, but seems to have been knighted during it, and was certainly a knight by March 1416. 

In the surviving early-modern transcription of the Agincourt Roll, Babthorpe appears as:

SIR ROBERT BABTHORP, CONTROLLER OF THE KINGES HOWSE, WITH HIS RETENU.

• Thomas Babthorp.
• John Wardale.
• Thomas Wisse.
• William Mason.
• Thomas Hardewyn. 
• Lances VJ
• Archers XVIIJ

At first sight, the Agincourt Roll appears to give Babthorpe a rather larger retinue than the one used here: six lances and eighteen archers, a total of twenty-four men. It also names five men beneath Babthorpe: Thomas Babthorp, John Wardale, Thomas Wisse, William Mason and Thomas Hardewyn.

Unfortunately, medieval administration rarely makes things quite that simple. Modern research by the Medieval Soldier project, using the surviving Exchequer and muster records alongside the Roll, concludes that Babthorpe actually fought at Agincourt with four other men-at-arms and fifteen archers.

The discrepancy seems to reflect changes between the original retinue and the men ultimately accepted and paid for service. In particular, William Mason was struck from the muster because his inclusion exceeded the numbers allowed under Babthorpe's indenture, while three additional archers similarly account for the difference between eighteen and fifteen.

His career continued after Agincourt, he returned to France, served during Henry V's conquest of Normandy and was present during the siege of Rouen in 1418-19. He also continued to rise within the royal household, becoming Controller of the King's Household in 1416 and later Steward of the Household. 

Henry V clearly trusted him: Babthorpe was amongst those appointed to administer the king's will. He survived Henry by fourteen years, eventually dying in 1436.

Building the Retinue

To my mind, one of the challenges of building a retinue is trying to work out what a group of twenty actual men might have looked like. Usually that involves quite a lot of guesswork. With Babthorpe we have the considerable advantage of knowing the basic composition of his force: five men-at-arms and fifteen archers. We will wrap one of men-at-arms in to a standard bearer, whilst some of the retinue are mounted, they would normally dismount for battle. I think that Babthorpe would have outfitted his men-at-arms well so they have quite a high chance of being fully-armoured but armour as you see fit.

William Callowe

One of the nice things about Babthorpe's retinue is that at least one of the archers emerges from the records as rather more than simply a name.

William Callowe served under Babthorpe at Agincourt. During or immediately after the battle he and William Kempton, a man-at-arms serving Sir William Phelip, captured a Frenchman recorded as le Sire de Corps. More importantly, he was apparently worth £356 13s 4d in ransom. Not bad work for just an archer!

I've also made him the retinue's second Leader. There's no evidence that Callowe actually held such a position, but Écorcheurs! benefits from another Leader and, of the men we can identify, he seems by far the most entertaining candidate.

Babthorpe, Sir Robert. Fully-Armoured. Mounted. D8 Quality Die. 2CD in combat. Leader, Chivalrous, 50% chance of Puissant trait.

Standard Bearer. Part-Armoured, 66% chance of being Fully-Armoured. Mounted. D6 Quality Die. 2 CD in combat.

3 Men-at-Arms. Part-Armoured, 66% chance of being Fully-Armoured. Mounted. Sword. D6 Quality Dice,. 1 CD in combat.

Callowe, William. Part-Armoured. D8 Quality Die. Bow. 2CD in combat. Leader, Forester, 33% chance of Resourceful trait.

14 Archers. Unarmoured, 33% chance of being Part-Armoured. Bow. D6 Quality Die. 1 CD in combat.

I get the sense that Babthrope's retinue leant to wards a heavily armoured core of men-at-arms and a highly effective archer body led by Callowe. 

If you would prefer a non-chance based retinue then this would be (I know war-gamers like a list after all!):

Babthorpe, Sir Robert. Fully-Armoured. Mounted. D8 Quality Die. 2 CD in combat. Leader, Chivalrous, Puissant trait.

Standard Bearer. Fully-Armoured. Mounted. D6 Quality Die. 2 CD in combat.

2 Men-at-Arms. Fully-Armoured. Mounted. Sword. D6 Quality Dice. 1 CD in combat.

1 Men-at-Arm. Part-Armoured. Mounted. Sword. D6 Quality Dice. 1 CD in combat.

Callowe, William. Part-Armoured. D8 Quality Die. Bow. 2CD in combat. Leader, Forester trait.

10 Archers. Unarmoured, Bow. D6 Quality Die. 1 CD in combat.

4 Archers. Part-Armoured. Bow. D6 Quality Die. 1 CD in combat.

Enjoy! 

Sources & Further Reading

Medieval Soldier Project - The English Army in 1415

Medieval Soldier Project - English Army Table

Medieval Soldier Project - Agincourt Prisoners

Agincourt Roll transcription - Society of Archers 1673

Mapping the Medieval Countryside - Sir Robert Babthorpe IPM (1436)

Battle of Biville-la-Baignarde Scenario

This is a scenario for 1940 "A Day in Hell - Battle of Biville-la-Baignarde” which was first run on 24th January 2026 at our Lardy Day down on the south coast of Hampshire at “Come and have a go if you think you’re LARD enough 2026”.

The scenario covers the actions of the 53e Battalion de Chasseurs Alpins and their fierce defence of the Normandy village of Biville-la-Baignarde from Schützen Regiment 13 on one day - the 10th of June 1940. The aim of this scenario is to highlight the bravery and tenacity of the French Army in the defence of their homeland, this was not a stroll to Paris for the Germans. The German Army incurred more casualties per day in Fall Rot than they did in Fall Gelb, and up to 90,000 Frenchmen would die before the Armistice was signed.

On the day I also offered the players the option of taking an Event Card instead of accumulating a CoC point when on the receiving end of a double phase, these add flavour but are entirely optional and just for fun.

You can find the scenario and optional Event Cards in the Files section.

If you wish you can see the the historical background I have a post here, my scenario design process here and some pictures of the game on the Lardy Day too.

** Update 28th Sept 2026 ** The French deployment line is wrong in the pdf, it should be 20" in and not about 10" as it is shown in the map currently.

Enjoy!

Crossing the Meuse PSC - Mapping

I have been working on a pint-sized campaign covering the advance of the Infantrie-Regiment Großdeutschland's crossing of the Meuse and assault on Hill 247 in Sedan, 13 May 1940. 

I needed a map to show the wider assault on the day, so after a little work I think I am happy with the result.

More details on the campaign to follow...

Unofficial CoC² and Blitzkrieg 1940 Handbook Alignment

 

Updated a few mistakes, v2.1 22 May 2026. 

Support Lists in Files section also updated to match

As a long time fan of the early war period and spending way too much time deep in the Blitzkrieg 1940 Handbook, I was keen to try and bring some elements up to date with the advent of Chain of Command 2.

These are totally unofficial and my take on various items such as support classifications, no radios and fixed line forward observers. I will update the various nations support lists in the Files section soon to reflect this update.

You can download the file from here.

Morris CS9 Insignia STLs

 

So in 1940 CS9 armoured cars had a little insignia on their wheel arch, so a little bit of editing and I have added it to my STL. If anyone wants the file just let me know. #chainofcommand #spreadthelard #stl #wargaming

[image or embed]

— Wargaming Things (Andy) (@wargamingthings.bsky.social) 2 May 2026 at 19:41

If you want the STLs you can find them in the Files.

Many Rivers to Cross with CoC² - Armoured Thoughts

 

Morris CS9 armoured cars of 'C' Squadron, 12th Royal Lancers (Prince of Wales' Own) at Villiers St Simon, 29 September 1939

Image: IWM (O 594)

I have been thinking further on armoured options available in the Pint-Sized Campaign Many Rivers to Cross and preparing to run it.

The flexibility of the campaign is that you can take any of the 1940 nations and play them against the Germans, selecting support as appropriate. However, there is a twist in this campaign in that the Germans do not have access to any armour or wheeled support until Turn 4 - this means it is entirely possible for the German player to face heavy Allied armour early campaign with pretty much zero capability to drive it off. In my set-up for the campaign, the British could take Matilda II's on the first table and hold it indefinitely.

The campaign needs to be fun, balanced and achievable for both sides and I am a big fan of the mantra "Play the Period not the Rules".

So what armour was knocking around in this area for the 5th Glosters or the Infanterie-Regiment 82?

German armour was limited in the Tournai–Escaut sector in mid-May 1940 because Army Group B was never intended to deliver the decisive blow of the campaign. Its panzer divisions, such as 3rd Panzer Division and 4th Panzer Division, were initially committed in Belgium to draw Allied forces forward (notably at Hannut and Gembloux), but once the breakthrough was achieved further south at Sedan, they were rapidly redirected toward the Channel. 

By 18–20 May, when fighting around Tournai and the Escaut was taking place, these armoured formations had already moved away, leaving infantry divisions like the 31st Infantry Division to continue the advance with only light reconnaissance vehicles. The absence of tanks was therefore not accidental, but a direct result of German operational design to concentrate armour at the decisive point, and accept thinner forces elsewhere.

Allied armour was similarly limited in this area because it had either been committed and worn down earlier in the campaign or was positioned elsewhere to respond to the rapidly developing crisis. French mechanised formations, such as the 2e Division Légère Mécanique, had already fought major engagements in central Belgium and were withdrawing in disorder, while British heavy armour like the 1st Army Tank Brigade was concentrated further south around Arras for counterattack operations rather than distributed along the Escaut line. 

Meanwhile, British infantry divisions (including those around Tournai) lacked integral tank support and relied mainly on carriers and scattered armoured cars. Combined with disrupted communications, fuel shortages, and the speed of the German advance, this meant that Allied units in the Escaut sector were forced to fight largely unsupported rearguard actions, with little or no effective armoured backing.

So thinking this all though, I propose an amended support list which limits armoured options to Bren Carriers, CS9 and SdKfz 221's. The Germans do have access to heavier Bisons but these are very expensive and a later campaign choice. Maybe once German amour can flood across the river on their new bridge then bring in the full range of armour for both side?

I have created a list of support choices with limited armour option in the Files section here.

Many Rivers to Cross with CoC²

 

*** Updated 12th May 2026 ***

I have removed the support limitations for the scenarios on Map 2-5 as when I stood back and looked at the Blitzkrieg scenarios in the round, none of them would have permitted use of mortars or flamethrowers. A bit stupid when they are on the support list!

I am looking to run the 1940 Pint-Sized Campaign "Many Rivers to Cross" from the Lardy Magazine 2018 and wanted to pull together my thoughts on how this would now be run in the brave new world of CoC².  

I have also put all my wider thoughts and suggestions on playing Blitzkrieg with CoC² in my post Unofficial CoC² and Blitzkrieg 1940 Handbook Alignment.

This is as much a reference for me on how I plan to run this PSC as anything, thoughts and decisions are my own and seem to make sense to me, feel free to disagree in the Comment below.

For those not familiar with the campaign, the basic premise is the German's are advancing across six (well, sort of five if you read the campaign) tables with the time pressure to secure the bridge on the final table before their opponent destroys it. Their opponent can be any nation from the 1940 Blitzkrieg Book, in my case I am going for my newly painted BEF who may also call upon any French support options I have too.

What to consider when porting this 2018 PSC over to CoC²?

Setting and Campaign Narrative

Belgian soldiers taken prisoner march pass their German captors in May 1940

Image: IWM (HU 75891)

I want to tailor this to real world BEF unit falling back towards Dunkirk and so after a little research I discovered the 5th Glosters fighting against Infanterie-Regiment 82. This allowed me to pin the PSC tables to specific historic locations as the Glosters fell back. In my take on this PSC, there were not any meaningful French or Belgian forces in the area to for the British to call on for support, so the British are on their own.

Full details of this are in the Many Rivers to Cross player briefings as well as Platoon Rosters available from the Files section here.

Chain of Command 2 Rule Changes & Updates

Compiling rule updates can cause serious headaches!

Image: IWM (A12268)

As a fundamental rule, all of CoC² rules are adopted unless noted otherwise where the 1940 Blitzkrieg Book has primacy.

There are a bunch of CoC² rule changes/updates that I will simply include, such as;

Adopting the values from the Master Arsenal on page 48, these will trump any of the individual Blitzkrieg nations Master Arsenals (e.g. 2" mortar does 3 HE not 2 previously, SMGs increased damage, etc).

Mortars and similar have 3 rounds of HE and smoke (where applicable)

National characteristics are as per CoC² for the British Five Rounds Rapid, Concentrated Fire, Smoke Screen and from the 1940 Blitzkrieg Book Keep. For the Germans as per CoC² with Maschinengewehr, Handgranaten and Panzerknacker, I have omitted Pakfront! as this wasn't doctrine early war (and there were only a handful of SPG in 1940 anyway!).

AFV ability to deploy smoke is as per my previous post on early war AFV smoke deployment. As a result, not all vehicles have this capability and often in a different way to later war CoC² description.

1940 Blitzkrieg Book Rules

Blitzkrieg AFV/APC have 3 morale as per relevant nations, 4 morale can be achieved by fielding a Senior Leader in armoured platoons as mentioned for each relevant nation. I think this reflects the less trained nature of the early war period and the flimsy nature of some of the vehicles.

The Red Dice is treated differently in the 1940 Blitzkrieg Book (p.15) as opposed to CoC² (See 7.7). I propose sticking with the 1940 version requiring the German player to take three non-static support choices (this would include any off-table support choices as being static too). 

Force Lists

These remain unchanged from the 1940 Blitzkrieg Book with following exceptions:

Mortars have 3 crew and limited ammunition.

Engineers are adapted to CoC² rules. This means the previous Engineers Mine Clearance Team, Engineers Wire-Cutting Team and Engineers Demolition Team are replaced with a single Engineer Team, 3 figures and the addition of Explosive Charge for Engineers (Max: 2) as Support choices. 

It will now cost 2 Support Points to make the equivalent of the 1940 Engineers Demolition Team (if this is deemed egregious then permit one Engineer Team with a free Explosive Charge available for 1 point).

In the 1940 Blitzkrieg Book there is also the Engineer Section with Junior Leader, this would now be defined as two Engineer Teams led by a Junior Leader. Addition of Explosive Charges is extra (although see my previous comment and you may chose to permit a one of the Engineer Teams to have a free Explosive Charge).

Support Choices

CoC² introduces for the first time restrictions on support choices for various scenarios, for example limiting mortars to certain scenarios. This is likely to mean that the 1940 Blitzkrieg Book scenarios would also have had limitations on them. With CoC²  mortars are generally only available when the Attacker is attacking a prepared defensive/static line in the "Attack & Defend" (Attacker only) and "Attack on a Objective", fluid battlefield scenarios therefore do not have mortars available to them, I will try and reflect this.

Smoke Barrages: In my research I didn't find much evidence of British artillery smoke barrages routinely being used at this early stage of the war and so I haven't included them as a support choice for the British. Other nations may be different but since I am using BEF that has been the focus of my research. German doctrine had more integrated developed use of smoke barrages (H.Dv. 200/5 – Die Truppenführung (1933/34, still governing doctrine in 1940) and so is a support choice for them in this PSC.

Bren gun LMGs added to Bren Carriers explicitly where appropriate where it wasn't clear or consistent in the 1940 Blitzkrieg Book.

Added in Replen Points, cars, lorries, etc.

The German player has support limitations as per page 24 of the PSC depending on the Campaign Turn.

Stuka availability limited as per page 25.

French players may still take "Additional V-B ammunition for one man" for 1 support, this allows endless ammunition for one man.

My complied list of support choices for Many Rivers to Cross is available for British and German forces on the Files section here.

Scenario Design

Oddly sailors were involved with updating the scenarios?

Image: IWM (A18017)

Map One: The Mill Crossing

The original Attack & Defend scenario is different from the v1 rules so a few tweaks needed to bring it to bring it up to date with CoC² Attack & Defend mission on page 82.

Objective: The singular Objective is the bridge so this scenario will not have the defending player removing any second objective on the Turn end. Just one rather large, obvious Objective for this table.

Patrol Phase: Attacker does not get any bonus moves before the Patrol Phase.

Support: Constraints for the Defender as per CoC² Attack & Defend mission. Additionally the Defender may not take a Pregame Bombardment. 

Wining the Battle: Capturing the bridge by the Attacker triggers either side being able to start the Final Countdown mechanic.

Other Changes: Attacker starts with 1D3 CoC points. If the campaign has got to this stage then the German's campaign has gone serious wrong, Regardless of campaign turn, I would permit anti-tank guns and light infantry guns as a minimum for the Germans to chose from to make the fight memorable.

 Map Two: The Village

This is a "Hasty Defence" scenario from 1940 Blitzkrieg Book with a couple of tweaks, there is no direct CoC² equivalent although A Delaying Action" is similar in nature.

Support: Neither side can select Mortars. No Flamethrowers may be selected (see CoC² 20.3).

Map Three: Farm & Forest

This is a "Swift to Support" scenario and again will limit mortar choices.

Support: Neither side can select Mortars. No Flamethrowers may be selected (see CoC² 20.3).

Map Four: Farm and Road

This is "Going with a Bang" scenario and again will limit mortar choices. 

Support: Neither side can select Mortars. No Flamethrowers may be selected (see CoC² 20.3). 

Map Five: The Open Road

This "Blitzkrieg" scenario (see my notes on this type of scenario here) is unique to the 1940 Blitzkrieg Book and is the very essence of the nature of the early war period.

Support: Neither side can select Mortars. No Flamethrowers may be selected (see CoC² 20.3).

Map Six: The River Bridge

 The finale of the PSC and akin to CoC²  "Attack on an Objective". 

Objective: The objective itself should be 12" in from the table edge, this I think is a minor issue as winning the town will lead to its capture eventually.

Patrol Phase: The Defender places their four starting Patrol Markers in the town square in difference to the scenario text. As noted in the scenario notes, a fourth Jump Off Point is placed on the bridge. I would replace this with the Objective marker but also allow the Defender to use it as a Jump Off Point (with no penalty of a captured JoP if captured though).

Support: The Defender may select Delayed Armour support.

Wining the Battle: Capturing the bridge by the Attacker triggers either side being able to start the Final Countdown mechanic. 

I hope this rather long post helps anyone looking to run Many Rivers to Cross, feel free to comment or ask any questions below or find me on Bluesky.

Painting 20mm 1940 BEF

1940 BEF Rifleman

With my French forces painted, I wanted another force to face the Germans and of course the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) seemed like a natural choice, especially as I wanted to run the Many Rivers to Cross PSC with them.

I had backed the Studio Historia Kickstarter For King & Country: Britain at War Vol 1 BEF (1939-1941) so I had the models I needed. I recommend these models but printing at 20mm presented its own challenges as some of the modelling is a little over detailed resulting in some very thin parts of the model in 20mm. I replaced the rifles to get rid of the flimsy rifle straps, thicken up the bits I needed to print and spent way too long trying to get the damned Norton motorcycle squad to print (a personal nightmare). I also edited a lot of the STLs to make them standing and more to my liking, all in all these models took a lot of tweaking.

My required list to play the PSC and also permit me to fill out most of the Support List with is:

Basic 1940 Regulation Platoon

• Senior Leader or two and a Platoon Sergeant
• 4 sections each of Junior Leader, 3 man Bren LMG, 7 riflemen (I will probably do extra rifle men as well)
• 2 x 2" mortar team with three crew
• 2 x Boys Anti-Tank rifle teams of 2 men 
• Medical Orderly
• Engineer Teams 
• Thompson SMG options for Leaders
• Sniper Team
• "1 pounder" 25mm Anti-Tank gun (I can use the French one for this from Colonel Muller)
• Engineer Section (a throw back to the v1 rules, a Junior Leader and two three man engineer teams (no flamethrower in 1940) and can be equipped with Explosive Charges from the Support List.
• Vickers MMG
• 2 pounder Anti-Tank gun
• Forward Observer for fun

Of course any 1940 BEF force had lots of Blanco, in fact Blanco No.97 Khaki Green (Medium) is the Blanco of choice. The standout feature of these early war troops is their green webbing and I wanted to try and get it right if I can.

Painting Guide

Largely based on the excellent Painting Panzer's guide... 

with a few tweaks by me:

• Undercoat with 70.601 Vallejo Grey Primer.

• Paint uniform with 70.921 English Uniform.

• Paint the skin using 70.815 Basic Skin Tone and then apply two washes of ArmyPainter Quickshade Flesh Wash to bring it to life.

• Gas mask bag on chest, helmet chin straps and any rifle straps 70.988 Khaki

• Blanco webbing, water bottle straps, backpack, shovel case and gaiters in 70.924 Russian Uniform WWII.

• Water bottle body in 70.880 Khaki Grey

• Rifle woodwork and small bedroll in backpack with 70.875 Beige Brown.

• Bayonet, rifle metalwork and boots with 70.862 Black Grey.

• Helmet and Gas Cape with 70.887 US Olive Drab.

• Officer belts, straps and pouches in 70.846 Mahogany Brown

• Officer "cavalry" trousers in 70.988 Khaki

At this point all the dull stuff is done and you will feel disappointed that it all looks a bit pants - time for the wonder of washes!

Give it a wash of 50% Army Painter Strong Tone all over thinned with of 50% Vallejo 71.361 Airbrush Thinner. I usually do two washes as sometimes just one wash isn't strong enough for my liking but each to their own.

Now to the fun stuff that makes the figure really shine. When highlighting I basically repaint back with the original colour and then a highlight colour diluted down so it isn't too strong , some people mix paints but I am too lazy and just dilute with a dab of thinner.

• Highlight uniform with 70.921 English Uniform and then further highlight with 70.824 German Camo Orange Ochre.

• Highlight the Blanco with 70.924 Russian Uniform WWII, and then 70.891 Intermediate Green and then final touches with 70.885 Pastel Green. I found this really makes the early war webbing pop in a lovely limey green.

• Gas mask bag, helmet chin straps and rifle straps with 70.988 Khaki, then highlight with 70.884 Stone Grey

• Water bottle body with just 70.880 Khaki Grey

• Rifle woodwork and small bedroll in backpack with 70.875 Beige Brown and then further highlight with 70.843 Cork Brown

• Helmet and Gas Cape with 70.887 US Olive Drab and then on the helmet a dry brushing of 70.891 Intermediate Green

• Highlight noses, cheekbones and knuckles using 70.815 Basic Skin Tone.

• Officer belts, straps and pouches retouch in 70.846 Mahogany Brown and then highlight with 70.818 Red Leather

• Officer "cavalry" trousers in 70.988 Khaki and then highlight with 70.884 Stone Grey

Cpt. Cholmondley-Warner is judging your painting!

To help identify figures on the table, I have gone for painting edges of the bases 

• Senior Leader in dark red

• Junior Leader in orange

• Bren gun teams in grey

• Riflemen in plain black

Section almost finished with just the basing left to do

I hope you have enjoyed this guide and happy painting the sea of beige and khaki!

I will post some more pictures later of more finished figures.

Blitzkrieg! Scenario Explained

Connoisseurs of the early war period and devotees of the TFL "1940 Blitzkrieg 1940 Handbook" will doubtless be aware of the scenario Blitzkrieg! and it's rather confusing victory conditions and support qualifications.  

I caveat this statement with the fact that I found it confusing, it may be crystal clear to many but to me I was playing it the wrong way for several sessions until a post on the CoC Facebook page led me to take a second look at it. 

In the spirit of sharing my thinking and hopefully helping others to understand the scenario I thought I would share my thinking and explanation. I do not claim to understand Rich's design thinking, this is my interpretation of the logic behind the scenario and how to play it on the table.

So let us start with the source of my confusion, in the Objective for the Blitzkrieg! scenario:

The Blitzkrieg! Objective and source of confusion!

So I interpreted this as:

• Defender choses their Support choices
• Defender may not deploy any of their Support choices until they have played two full Chain of Command dice
• Attacker can use their Chain of Command dice to delay this by spending three points
• Attacker wins if they get two units off the table

This inevitably led to discussions around would some of the defender's Support choices appear before two CoC dice were played? Think of "Pre-Game Barrage", "Roadblock" or "Minefield" - do these not appear until two CoC dice are played by the defender, that doesn't seem to make sense as they are present at the start of the game usually? 

Usually this resulted in some of fudge and a feeling of something not being quite quite right. Players would eye each other nervously and agree to never play this scenario again!

Top minds at work on deciphering the true meaning

However, the scales fell from my eyes when I took another look at the scenario and it all became clear to me, well, at least, I think it has!

Let us look at the narrative behind the scenario, this is Blitzkreig! The enemy, usually German, is pushing aggressively forward and seeking to breach enemy lines, to exploit weakness and push further on in to the rear areas of the defender. The defender seeks to delay them and stymy the advance until they can call upon their reserves to plug the gap, halt the blitzkrieg and prevent the break through.

In this context, let us take another look at the mission Objective.

With context this time

The objective of the attacker is clear - push on aggressively and exploit the advance and get two units off the defender's table edge. Time is the key here, push on fast and drive deep in to the rear echelons of the enemy before they can organise a defence. Drive fast and drive hard and don't let the defender's get the chance to recover. The playing of their own Chain of Command points represent the delay to the defender's attempt to reorganise.

For the defender this is a different story. They need to marshal their resources and try and halt the blitzkrieg until their rear echelons can organise and block the enemy thrust. This is represented by their playing of two full Chain of Command dice. 

Unlike the "Swift to Support" scenario, which explicitly states that the defender cannot deploy support until Turn 2, the Blitzkrieg! scenario has no such restriction. The phrase "call up support" in this scenario refers to a specific narrative victory trigger. 

The defender wins the game instantly if they can successfully play two full Chain of Command dice before the attacker exits two units from the table. In effect, the playing of two full CoC dice represents the defender successfully alerting higher headquarters and bringing the "main body" of their force into the area, effectively ending the attacker's chance for a rapid breakthrough via blitzkrieg. 

The attacker can delay this by using one of their own full Chain of Command dice to reduce the defender's accrued Chain of Command points by three. 

So the defender can deploy their support choices from the beginning of the game, with a sort of "ticking clock" mechanism of two CoC dice being played for their victory which the attacker can blunt and delay by using their own dice while racing to get two units off the table.

I hope this helps those players who have been confused by this scenario, I know I was!

Panzerknacker in 1940 for CoC²

Panzerknacker or is it "Geballte Ladung"?

With the advent of Chain of Command² rules there is the addition of the new German National Characteristics of "Panzerknacker":

"Where a section has three hand grenades available, it can convert them to a compound charge with which to attack an AFV or APC."

The Army Lists in CoC² represent late war forces circa 1944 onwards, so I wondered if this Characteristic was also present in the early war period covered by the Blitzkrieg 1940 Handbook?

First of all, let's be clear, we are talking about an adhoc improvised explosive device here and not the later war Panzerknacker or Hafthohlladung. Whilst Panzerknacker just means "tank breaker", it is an all encompassing term for any explosive charge used on enemy armoured vehicles.

The German Army had a long history of using ahdoc grenade based explosives, even using them in the 1st World War as bombs dropped from aircraft.

Cover of the 1936 Luger/Stick Grenade manual

According to the 1936 dated manual "Die Stielhandgranate 24 und ihre Handhabung" ("The Pistol 08 and its Handling, the Stick Grenade and its Handling"), a compound charge or "Geballte Ladung" could be made of any number of grenade heads, just so long as they were firmly connected to each other.

Apparently there's clear evidence that there was an early use of such cobbled together weapons in 1936, but was there any documented use in the early war period?

The Osprey book German Pionier 1939–45: Combat Engineer of the Wehrmacht (drawing on period imagery and manuals) illustrates that Geballte Ladungen were formally part of German combat engineer German Engineer Training Manuals (Pioneers) and their doctrine. 

There is a documented used of Geballte Ladungen by Pionier-Bataillon 12 der 12. Infanterie-Division when destroying the door of a French bunker.

In the Military Intelligence Service, War Dept, Washington D.C. Special Series No. 14 German Infantry Weapons, May 25, 1943 the use of grenades in an antitank role is explictly described;

Given that this document is dated 1943 it is reasonable to assume that it describes the use of German weapons since the beginning of the war. Whilst a majority of the evidence is primarily focussed on their use in a demolition role it is also mentioned in an antitank role.

And as if more proof was needed, a video of someone in Ukraine fashioning a modern equivalent using Polish grenades but also covering the history of the use of Geballte Ladungen. Sadly there is a need for these items even today.

In summary, yes the Geballte Ladung or in CoC² terms a "Panzerknacker" is appropriate for the 1940 setting as a National Characteristic, use it at your own risk though!

Close Combat in CoC² - A Nerd's Approach

A crack British section assaults a nearby cake shop

Close combat is a "desperate, violent struggle", just how desperate and violent some analysis will bear out.

In my experience the vicious charge in to close combat usually results in the attacking squad getting their butts handed to them, especially when the defender is in a house or other hard cover. So just what can you do to improve your chances of success, what statistically might work?

Let's find out. I have taken the opportunity to run the numbers and chances of success of close combat and the factors that might improve the odds.

In this example, I have taken a standard British section of a Junior Leader, 3-man Bren Team, 6 riflemen attacking a regular German section of a Junior Leader, 4-man LMG Team, 5 riflemen. The plucky British are moving a visible 2d6 to get within 4" and initiate close combat.

To add some flavour, let us imagine this is the Walmington-on-Sea Home Guard led by the rotund Cpt. Mainwaring attacking a standard platoon of dastardly Jerries delivered by U-Boat!

Just how can Captain Mainwaring succeed?

"Hello Walmington-on-Sea Analytics Department?"

Base Combat Dice Calculations

Let's start with the basic assault and defence dice we will be using in this analysis.

British Base: 9 dice (figures) + 2 dice (Leader orders) + 1 die (Sten SMG)  = 12 Dice total.

German Base: 9 dice (figures) + 2 dice (Leader orders) + 1 die (Machine Pistol) + 3 dice (LMG in Arc of Fire) + 2 dice (2D6 fully visible movement) = 17 Dice total.

Neither side is deemed to be Aggressive, Stubborn or Green.

On the face of it the two Sections are pretty balanced but let us add in some defensive terrain and other factors and see how radically this changes the chance of success.

Tactical Variables & Success Probabilities

Statistically, each Combat Die has a 33% chance of causing a hit (of a 5 or 6). 

So let's start with the various chances when assaulting different levels of cover. The following statistical percentages represent the probability of the British Attacker winning the first round (scoring more hits than the German Defender).

Hard Cover (2% Success - "We're doomed, doomed I tell ya!")

The Germans are ensconced in a building. When attacking Hard Cover, the British dice pool is halved (12 becomes 6). Statistically, it is nearly impossible for 6 dice to out-roll 17 dice when both need 5s or 6s to hit.

Statistical Expectancy: British expect 2.0 hits vs. Germans' 5.6 hits

The British are more likely to be "Defeated by Four" or more, which results in a total surrender or being wiped out. Not a smart move there Cpt. Mainwaring!

Light Cover (6% Success - "You stupid boy")

The Germans are hiding behind a hedge. When attacking Light Cover, the British dice pool is reduced by a third (12 becomes 8). Statistically, it improves the odds slightly but this is still unlikely to result in a British successful assault

Statistical Expectancy: British expect 2.6 hits vs. Germans' 5.6 hits 

The British are most likely to be "Defeated by Three," which adds 2 Shock and forces a 12” retreat facing away from the enemy.

In the Open (18% Success - "The Vicars not going to like this")

Assaulting in the Open means it is a straight British 12 dice versus 17 German dice. 

Statistical Expectancy: British expect 4.0 hits vs. Germans' 5.6 hits

While the odds are better, the German LMG bonus and the +2 dice for the British movement being visible still give the Germans a 3:2 advantage. This is likely to result in a "Draw" or a "Defeated by One" for the British.

via GIPHY

So cover is a key factor in the chances of Cpt. Mainwaring being successful here, so what other factors can he skilfully deploy to increase his odds.

In these examples it is assumed the Germans are still in hard cover as this is the worst case scenario.

Hard Cover, Germans have 6 Shock (8% Success - "Do you think that's wise Sir?")

Shock reduces the German pool by 1 die per 2 points (for Regulars), so narrowing the gap to 14 German dice versus 6 British. Narrowing yes, but still not enough when in hard cover.

Statistical Expectancy: British expect 2.0 hits vs. Germans' 4.6 hits 

Hard Cover, Germans are Pinned (38% Success - "My sister Dolly's upside down cake")

A German Section with 11 Shock becomes Pinned. Starting with 17 dice, subtract 5 dice for 11 Shock (leaving 12), then halve the remainder for being Pinned, resulting in 6 dice.

As a result, even with the British halved for the German's Hard Cover (6 dice). This is likely to result in a "Draw".

Statistical Expectancy: British expect 2.0 hits vs. Germans' 2.0 hits

The British have a 38% of winning, 24% of a draw and fighting again. 

Cpt. Mainwaring has effectively "suppressed the position" enough to make the assault viable.

Hard Cover and Rear Attack Advantage (72% Success "Don't Panic!")

In this example the German's have no shock at all. Manoeuvring to the rear is the most powerful tool in the British arsenal, so if Cpt. Mainwaring can lead the lads around the back of the Germans he can probably win.

Manoeuvring to the rear provides two massive benefits: the attacker does not halve their dice for the enemy's cover, and the defender's pool is halved for the first round. This gives the British 12 dice versus 8 for the Germans'.

Statistical Expectancy: British expect 4.0 hits vs. Germans' 2.6 hits

Hard Cover, Pinned and Rear Attack Advantage (100% Success "They don't like it up 'em!")

This is the perfect attack carried out by Cpt. Mainwaring with no need to roll any dice, let see how that is worked out.

If the Germans have 11 Shock and are considered Pinned and then hit from the rear, their pool of 17 dice (after Shock reduction to 12) is halved twice (12 → 6 → 3). 

Statistical Expectancy: British expect 4.0 hits vs. Germans' 1.0 hit 

Because the British have 12 dice and these are four times the German 3 dice, the Overwhelming Numbers rule applies. The Germans surrender or break immediately without any dice being rolled and the Walmington-on-Sea Home Guard are victorious! Cups of tea and promotions all round!

 

After a successful close assault, time for a small celebratory drink!

How to win at Close Combat

To emulate the tactical genius of Cpt. Mainwaring you need to do the following to have a greater than 50% chance of success in all your close combat dealings. 

A commander must ensure at least one of the following is in effect before launching the assault:

• The enemy has as much Shock as possible (reducing their dice and potentially Pinning them)
• The enemy is Pinned.
• The assault is a hit in the rear, negating cover and halving enemy dice further.

I hope you enjoyed this nerdy deep dive in to the perils of getting up close with the enemy!