Help support TMP

"Across a Deadly Field - Very pleased" Topic

15 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please don't call someone a Nazi unless they really are a Nazi.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the ACW Product Reviews Message Board

Action Log

02 Sep 2014 12:05 p.m. PST
by Editor in Chief Bill

  • Removed from ACW Discussion board
  • Crossposted to ACW Product Reviews board

Areas of Interest

American Civil War

Featured Hobby News Article

Featured Recent Link

Featured Ruleset

Featured Showcase Article

Project Completion: 1:72 Scale ACW Union Army

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian feels it's important to celebrate progress in one's personal hobby life.

Featured Profile Article

Featured Book Review

2,876 hits since 2 Sep 2014
©1994-2022 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

01 Bersaglieri02 Sep 2014 9:10 a.m. PST

Recently, I have been considering the possibilities of gaming the ACW. As I already have quite a large collection of wargaming armies for other periods and no intention of joining a club where players can muster large armies and above all field them on gigantic tables,with the publication of Across a Deadly Field the possibility of playing a Corps Size Battle at the regimental level on a 6x4 table becomes a reality. For these reasons I give these rules a big thumbs up!
I have never been a fan of the 'Big Battalions', some horse and musket games and displays which I have seen at clubs and
shows seemed more like Ancient battles because there were just too many figures on the table. I think the author has got it right.
To be fair,I am not in a position to criticize the rules as I have not yet played a game with them but what I have read and above all understood……. they seem to be excellent.

45thdiv02 Sep 2014 10:45 a.m. PST

Did you see this review?

TMP link

I found it interesting.

Bede1902502 Sep 2014 11:16 a.m. PST

Did you see this review? TMP link

I found it interesting not only because I wrote it, but also because I read the rules very thoroughly and played a game before writing it.

So, in my humble opinion, it's much more useful then comments from those who flicked through the pages on the store's shelves, saw the charts, and threw up their hands in horror.

Note I am not a fanboy or partisan (I still actually prefer Regimental Fire & Fure for ease of play and the look of it) but fair is fair.

79thPA Supporting Member of TMP02 Sep 2014 11:18 a.m. PST

Rules are like ice cream; not everybody likes the same thing. Let us know about your experience once you give them a try.

Old Pete02 Sep 2014 11:19 a.m. PST

Rules seem OK, just 1 figure representing 60 men means average regiments of 5 to 8 figures which seems a bit small.

Cold Steel02 Sep 2014 3:04 p.m. PST

I played several games at Nashcon and loved the rules. The mechanics are intuitive and easy to teach/learn. Game flow and combat outcomes are historically realistic. I was a little disappointed in the content of the rule book once I received it. Take out all the Osprey pictures and photos of JR games that use a different basing, and there wasn't much there for the price. The charts cover a lot of pages and are necessary to cover all the common scale figures. Yes, the full charts are pretty crowded since they cover all the possible weapon, but there are now plenty of home made charts on the web that reduce them to just what you need for a game. Again, I love the rule mechanisms. I wasn't thrilled with the 1:60 ratio either, but the great guys on the JR Yahoo group quickly came up with a 1:30 adaptation. Overall, a pretty good set of rules.

john lacour02 Sep 2014 3:39 p.m. PST

do you have a link to the 1=30 adaptation?

cwbuff02 Sep 2014 4:17 p.m. PST

Follow the threads at May have to join the group and review the files and messages.

Cold Steel02 Sep 2014 4:19 p.m. PST

In the Files section of the JR Yahoo group. Basically for 15 mm, just use the 10 mm charts and the cavalry fire charts (they are already 1:30). Remember to keep the maximum 16 infantry or 18 fire points. There are also mods for 3, 4, or 5 base units.


Personal logo Bashytubits Supporting Member of TMP02 Sep 2014 4:26 p.m. PST

I'm sticking with JR 2. I find it gives a very satisfying game.

doug redshirt02 Sep 2014 9:28 p.m. PST

I don't play any rules when a figure represents so many men be it 20 or 30 or a 1,000 and you count figures for combat. I only use rules that use bases to figure out combat. Why should it matter if I put 1 miniature or 12 on a base. Also if you have more then a half page of charts for combat forget it.

DontFearDareaper Fezian03 Sep 2014 1:30 p.m. PST

Fair enough Doug Redshirt, but for those of us who like to play a game slightly more complicated than checkers, this may be to OUR liking evil grin

Bede1902503 Sep 2014 2:59 p.m. PST

Fair enough Doug Redshirt, but for those of us who like to play a game slightly more complicated than checkers, this may be to OUR liking

I don't see that there is any correlation between rules that use figures to track casualties or calculate combat and complexity.

But if you say so…..

Aspern1809 Sponsoring Member of TMP14 Sep 2014 6:33 a.m. PST

Here is a link to a pdf on playing 15mm ADF at 1:30 with larger, four stand units:


Stalkey and Co11 Mar 2022 8:00 p.m. PST

nice and useful review – some great thoughts.


Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.