"British Grenadier – A First Impression of the rulebook" Topic

link

Though the current Pandemic situation has put the kibosh on a planned comparison between British Grenadier and Black Powder, I thought I would take some time to share my initial thoughts at the link above.

Loose Files and American Scramble is referenced with respect to troop order but strangely isn't for the use of Disruption Points (DPs) – I couldn't see much that didn't sound like LF&AS more on the difference, especially command and control and whether movement distance is randomised would be informative.

I've played BG about 4 times. I've found there to be far too many steps to the process. I prefer Guns of Liberty, which concentrates on morale, but whose mechanics are somewhat old school, but easier (and thus, faster).

I sort of like Guns of Liberty too. I am trying to figure out how to meld it with the command system from "The British Are Coming" rules.

One problem with Guns of Liberty is the author shot himself in the foot assuming single rank stands for everyone.

Yes, unfortunately, this review of British Grenadier rules, while mild mannered and friendly, has little to offer in terms of illustrating rules mechanics or "flow of play". And like BillyNM pointed out, Loose Files and American Scramble pop in as a comparison from seemingly nowhere which is a bit confusing.

The reviewer hasn't played the rules? I see this a fair bit and I dont like it. If youre going to review them, first play the rules.

I dont like the way British grenadier rules are organized; you need to use loose files and American scramble just to figure out what all the different Disruption Points are.

Perhaps the reviewer will eventually give us a blow by blow on how to play the rules and

The only thing I like about the British Grenadier rules is the name.

Very old school and clunky mechanics with too many tests and steps.

Not to mention not always completely clear. ( all wargames rules authors should be required to take a course in writing from Sam Mustafa).

Of course, this is just one man's opinion.

Hello Minipigs,

I do apologize if you were left with the impression that this was a review of the rules. That is not was this is – this is merely a first impressions of the rulebook and rules which I purchased. I thought that was made clear in the title, but if not, then I apologize.

Played them a number of times and always enjoyed the games. They seem to give an authentic feel for the period I think

Come play in one of our BG games at HMGS conventions. We'll convince you.:-)

Stayed off the BG rules after getting an impression from many places that they are slow to play. But strongly recommend their superb scenario books 1-4.

My experience is the game played fairly well if you stuck with it. Personally don't care for the fiddly DPs, and issues with the orders system can get "gamey". Also, as noted, the pace of play leaves something to be desired.

All that said, I am still looking for the set of AWI rules that gives me exactly what I'm looking for…

I've used Loose Files happily since they were published in 1987 (ish) with a few tweaks for 15 and 6mm. Can't see the point of paying for somebody else's tweaks in a glossy cover! Each to his own, I suppose.

Love the DPs idea. Keeps casualties realistic. Also forces you to think like a period officer.

It also helps to follow the brigade command rules too

When we first started playing BG, we omitted the brigade level commands, restrictions, and morale rolls. Once we added them the game took on a whole other feel. BG is as much a command and control as anything. Some games resolve through casualties, but since casualties were relatively low, morale and control are used instead.

Depends on a lot of factors.

What do you want from a wargame?

Some people want to play a simple game and others want to prove they're simulating history.

How much time do you have?

Some people dont have a lot, others have nothing but. if you game once every two months, or game 6 different periods, it is unlikely you want detailed, dry rules.

How much patience do you have to slog through dense rules or put up with flimsy rules?

If you read a lot in your day to day, it is unlikely you want to prove your intelligence by trying to decipher poorly written or complex rule books. However, if you're bored at work, I dont begrudge those people the chance to feed their brain by immersing themselves in a favorite subject. I do, however, draw the line at their suggesting that they're the only true keepers of the period flame.

What are you trying to prove?

Touched on above but it occurs to me that some people want to prove they're "intelektuals" while others just want to mess around. There are also the literal minded who seem to exclusively replay historical actions; which I personally find odd in the sense that it it is too unimaginative.

How much passion do you have for the period?

Some people never wargame anything else but one period. Someone who loves the ECW swears by this rule set 1644 or Forlorn Hope which are way too textured for someone like myself who likes the period but just wants to dabble in it.

There are of course other factors but the burden is on the rules writer to pack in history, gaming experience, flexibility, realism etc in as tightly, well written, terse a volume as possible. Anything less and they will find their rule sets consigned to niche enthusiasts.

Historygamer – exactly!

A friend of mine and I were drawn to the BG rules because it had gotten a lot of good press. We read that the rules were very well written. The idea of disruption points also seemed appropriate to us. When the 2nd Edition rules came out we took the plunge. We found the rules to move very slowly. And the kiss of death for us was that the disruption points, which are a core oar too the rules, had been completely omitted from the 2nd Edition. After much tracking down, we located them on an FAQ page or something. By then, we surrendered and went in another direction.

Could've saved yourself a few quid:

link

I'm currently adapting them for 25mm.

For Loose files and American tap dance, what alterations do you make for 28mm?

We learned the basics of BG from those more experienced. Then we reread the rules and later added the brigade level rules. I think it's always better to learn a set of rules from others more knowledgeable,no matter what the rules.

One of the problems with BG?

They're too pretty and luxuriously bound to use during wargaming, the set needs a tablet friendly ruiles version and QRS.

They are too clinical and dont give a good/challenging game so much as demonstrate the technical issues of ground action during the AWI. Why this is interesting to anyone with little time to entertain themselves, I couldn't tell you. But it's up there with watching the grass grow.

Not our club's take all. Makes me wonder if you're playing the rules correctly. To each his own.

@historygamer

I do beg your pardon. Somehow my post above got abridged. I meant to say something like: Even a lot of fans/enthusiasts of the rules assert that their reason for liking British Grenadier is that they are a [dry], historical simulation.

Personally, i couldn't care less because Ive certainly played much worse rules than BG but if you haven't got a lot of free time, spending three hours to set up a battle and then mostly worry about the units keeping their alignment sounds like an exercise in frustration and ennui. But hey ho, people enjoy bird spotting and building things from match sticks…there's that French film for instance.

Maybe the rules are good for people with nervous disorders who are trying to focus and calm down? :)

I do admit that they do require some intelligence to play. :-)

@historygamer

Well you yourself say it's best to learn rules from those more knowledgeable.

Perhaps you could demonstrate some of your acquired expertise by explaining to the rest of us how the rules operate and produce an enjoyable game flow?

Sure. Be glad to. Come play in one of my award winning games at an HMGS, and other conventions to be announced. My games have gained favor with a good following, won a good number of awards, and helped me earn the HMGS gamemaster of the year award. Little Wars TV did a nice piece posted to YouTube. Waiting to register for Fall In and contemplating which game to run. Just show up with a good attitude, an open mind, and have some fun. Please note that even though I am commander/president of the largest AWI Crown reenactment organization in the world, but I try hard to be impartial as a GM.

Can't comment on the rules mentioned here – but I do know there's a whole body of game design I've taken the liberty to term as "whose your daddy" rulesets.

You know them when it takes hours to get just a few turns accomplished in a normal convention session, or in the course of an afternoon.

Again, can't relate this to the rules being discussed, but I've experienced game sessions that are more inflicted onto the participants, rather than being enjoyable, dynamic exchanges.

Locally, we have our dogged adherents to such afflicted presentations – but over time the area gamers have learned to avoid many of these.

"You know them when it takes hours to get just a few turns accomplished in a normal convention session, or in the course of an afternoon."

So unless you are simply playing a beer and pretzel set of rules designed just for the convention, it will likely take some time to learn to play any set on rules you are not familiar with prior.

My experience with BG at conventions is that in about three or so moves the players are running the basics themselves. That's all any GM could hope for.

Remember, there are two types of game settings – conventions, and clubs. Both likely have some players experienced with a set of rules, while others are not. Like any set of rules beyond said beer and pretzels, it takes time to learn them. But saying you tried something once and hated it does not perhaps seem a fair trial run. The person teaching them is another variable hard to account for as well.

Opinions may vary. :-)

FlyX, that "you" I referred to is not you, per se, just a generic "you." :-)

I'll just add that one thing I look for at wargame conventions is to at least learn the basics of a rules system. Unfortunately, while home-brewed beer and pretzel rules might meet some needs for a convention setting, they really don't allow a player to take home anything except, perhaps, a few hours of fun. Nothing wrong with that, but then again, that isn't really teaching/learning anything new, and perhaps really doesn't advance the hobby much.

Fun? Who is trying to have fun? I want names!

Nothing makes me angrier than people trying to have fun with a hobby. Why I oughta….

We must track these "funsters" down and teach them that wargaming is serious business.

No offense taken HG.

I think there's a huge risk of "glazed eyes" syndrome occurring under most convention settings, and maybe the most we can expect is participants might have some familiarity with the style of warfare for the game they're attempting to join in and play. This IMO is why skirmish games are much easier to present – people just play army man (they can easily conceptualize playing at the individual, skirmish level of gaming).

Being careful here, but when considering how others might come to enjoy a game, I feel justified rejecting any ruleset that requires more than a 2-sided QRS (IMO if a game can't be played from a 2 page cheat sheet, it's not elegant, nor efficient enough for the general public). That is, it's not efficient enough for interested novices to follow and play well with their initial exposure. If players can't have some expectation of being able to grasp the basics of a ruleset, then perhaps the game system isn't really that efficient for playing at a convention or at other public venues.

This is where I call-out the difference between having a gamer's favorite home-played rule system too, and ones that work far better for public events and game days.

I see this lack of differentiation about rules efficiency in game reviews also – with glowing reports of sparkling turn sequences herein – then you realize that the reviewer most likely never plays other that against one chum, at their home, and the rule system would never work as a multiplayer game without modification.

So sure, we like what we like……and some of us might like efficient, elegant designs that accomplish a lot with a smaller footprint. Others like more rules footprint – that's ok. However, we're not all accomplishing the same goals with our efforts either.