Help support TMP


"G.Gush Renaissance rules for the GNW and WSS" Topic


10 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.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the 18th Century Discussion Message Board

Back to the Renaissance Discussion Message Board



741 hits since 24 Jan 2018
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

PeloBourbon Inactive Member24 Jan 2018 4:18 p.m. PST

Hi ,
Did somebody use that venerable set, the second edition (1420-1720)
to play the two aforementioned periods in the title?
If so which amendment, if any, have you done?

I will probably play again with the rules after more than 20 years and I'm curious to know if I can use them with what I painting now.

Many thanks in advance for any hint

dragon624 Jan 2018 4:42 p.m. PST

Interesting question. I enjoyed those rules

DisasterWargamer Supporting Member of TMP24 Jan 2018 5:20 p.m. PST

Enjoyed the rues – havent played them in sometime

Personal logo sillypoint Supporting Member of TMP24 Jan 2018 8:31 p.m. PST

I love these rules, however, beware that sometimes memories sometimes make things seem better.
I liked its value of hills, friendly units vs enemy units in (15"?) vicinity and "M" units. Revisiting the rules I did not like the casualty accounting and I feel figure removal is a bit of a stumble.
Apologies as it does not directly relate to GNW or WSS, but if you do take time to amend the rules, consider casualty accounting and removal. 😬

Shagnasty Supporting Member of TMP25 Jan 2018 9:17 a.m. PST

One of my favorite sets of my era. The casualty system is awkward. Too bad we couldn't get some revisions while keeping the core.

Secsesh Supporting Member of TMP25 Jan 2018 11:34 a.m. PST

The rules include an alternate "no accounting" figure removal system -i.e 1- 7 casualties are ignored; 15 – 19 a figure is removed; 8 – 14 = 1/2 casualty (lie a figure down or use some other marker).

PeloBourbon Inactive Member25 Jan 2018 12:51 p.m. PST

Hi everybody,

Thanks for the input and for not reject what could look like an odd idea.
Yes the rules includes an alternate casualty treatment, do you will amend the set to reflect the early XVIII warfare?

PeloBourbon Inactive Member25 Jan 2018 1:51 p.m. PST

The rules cover order(gallopers) close order( trotters) and open order, so I guess that reflect different cavalry trainings and behaviors.

You've got also salvo firing and bayonets beside pikes of courses for the start of the WWS and the whole GNW, the infantry can form in close order, what we're missing ? A way to differentiate the infantry doctrines?
English, Dutch versus French formations?

What are your suggestions?

Supercilius Maximus Supporting Member of TMP26 Jan 2018 5:04 a.m. PST

The rules went up to 1700, and so would accommodate any army still using pikes and irregular troops (eg cossacks); as PeloBourbon says, some mechanism to differentiate between the rank-firing of the French/allies and the platoon-firing of the Maritime Powers would be the only real distinction.

PeloBourbon Inactive Member27 Jan 2018 11:09 a.m. PST

That's it Supercilius,how we can translate those details with Gush's rules?
I will reread the book to see if I can find tools to do so.

Thanks for the input.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.