Help support TMP

"Wargamer's Guide to the American Revolution - ?" Topic

17 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 American Revolution Message Board

728 hits since 30 Apr 2018
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Joes Shop Supporting Member of TMP30 Apr 2018 5:03 a.m. PST

Years ago articles in 'Wargamer's Digest' with references to this rule set sparked my interest in the AWI.

I purchased the rule set and recall enjoying the read but the group I joined soon thereafter played '1776' so I never had an opportunity to try this.

I was re-organizing my rule sets and finding this brought all this back.

Has anyone played this set – thoughts – impressions – ?

Personal logo Doctor X Supporting Member of TMP30 Apr 2018 11:07 a.m. PST

I was a playtester for this set of rules so I've played many, many games oh so long ago.

The rules are basic and a bit dated at this point but can provide a good game. They have an old school feel to them and in a way remind me of, but are not similar to, TSATF.

The rules are not scale specific. Firing is a 2d6 lookup against a range table. Morale is tasken at 25% casualty increments and a handful of modifiers. If I recall correctly melee is a points per figure x number of figures x 2d6, high total is the winner.

Sadly some innovative ideas/rules and optional rules got taken out by the publisher between final draft and printing.

I'll have to pull my copy out and look at it again for nostalgia.

Joes Shop Supporting Member of TMP30 Apr 2018 11:49 a.m. PST

Doctor X: thanks for the info!

I was re-reading my copy last night. I'm going to give these a shot and see how they play.

abelp0130 Apr 2018 11:50 a.m. PST

Played these in the late '70s/early '80s with my old Airfix AmRev figures. I enjoyed them. I'd like to see them published again.

coopman Supporting Member of TMP30 Apr 2018 12:43 p.m. PST

Was this just a rules set or did it also have some useful background information?

Buckeye AKA Darryl30 Apr 2018 12:50 p.m. PST

I think I have a copy of these…maybe a white cover with blue print? To be honest, I didn't realize there was a set of rules in there as it has been quite some time since I looked through it.

Joes Shop Supporting Member of TMP30 Apr 2018 1:26 p.m. PST

Coopman: both – Background info, OOB's and a complete set of rules.

Joes Shop Supporting Member of TMP30 Apr 2018 1:28 p.m. PST

Darryl: I believe it went through several printings / covers. My copy (above) dated 1976 has a tan cover.

Personal logo Extra Crispy Sponsoring Member of TMP30 Apr 2018 6:40 p.m. PST

Anyone know who owns the copyright? If we could get permission we could scan them and distribute them maybe?

Rich Bliss30 Apr 2018 7:17 p.m. PST

One of the first rules set I ever bought, Very dated and a bit fiddly to play.

Bill N30 Apr 2018 8:51 p.m. PST

What makes rules "a bit dated" or "old school"? I have seen comments like this a few times before.

Joes Shop Supporting Member of TMP01 May 2018 5:11 a.m. PST

Not sure what 'dated' means either – other than the fact that a rule set is not 'new'. Personally I use the term 'old school' to define rules that were published in the 60's and 70's. It's a relative thing as I'm 59.

For me, the term doesn't have a negative connotation. I'm still playing / enjoying Battle!, Tobruk and SL/ASL and I guess most would consider them old school but it's completely subjective.

In re-reading the rules I agree that the term fiddly can be applied as it uses a roster system which has basically disappeared from rule sets but I came up with that type so it would not bother me.

Joes Shop Supporting Member of TMP01 May 2018 5:14 a.m. PST

EC: the rule set was part of the Z&M Enterprises catalog which I believe was owned by Richard Zimmerman. I don't know who currently owns the copyright.

Personal logo miniMo Supporting Member of TMP01 May 2018 8:08 p.m. PST

59 as well, and I found the 70's miniatures rules a drudge to play even back then! While the hallmarks 'datedness' can certainly still be found in new rules today, they were inescapable then: usually multiple tables for combat and morale, sometimes multiple morale checks to be made at various phases during the turn. And always long lists of modifiers applied to each table. The prevailing design school of the time equated chart complexity with 'realism'.

Tractics, you even had to calculate the angle of the shot against armour and compare to penetration value of the round! Empire III (3rd ed. '81) had flow charts to help navigate which tables to use when the horror, the horror.

Back in the day, I stuck with the more streamlined of the boardgames and home-brewed miniatures rules.

Joes Shop Supporting Member of TMP02 May 2018 4:48 a.m. PST

As I said: subjective.

Personal logo Doctor X Supporting Member of TMP02 May 2018 10:36 a.m. PST

Exactly Joe. Dated isn't a negative connotation. In my case "dated" and "old School" mean the mechanics are contemporary to that era of wargaming.

These rules are not chart heavy by any means.

As for Tractics, if you liked the whole shot angle thing you should've just bought Z&Ms Angriff WW2 rules. They pre-dated Tractics with a little easier method. Gun penetration at range vs 2d6 roll that determined hit location. Match that location on the tank profile and it the penetration is higher its a kill. I think Yaquinto's "88" and "Panzer" used the same thing later on but in a board game variant.

Last time I talked to Dick he still owned all the copyrights.

Joes Shop Supporting Member of TMP02 May 2018 10:49 a.m. PST

Doctor X: agreed. Spent many a Saturday afternoon as a kid moving furniture around in my parents house so we could play Tractics on the floor!

Is Dick still involved in the hobby-?

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.