""The Complete Brigadier" by J. F. Grossman" Topic

Got back to these rules, which I bought around when they first came out. Had some questions about them, and wondering if anyone knows the auther, J. F. Grossman who – I believe – hails from the midwest, and may have been a lawyer [not a Rules Lawyer, an attorney!].

Also, the artist Peter T. Quinlan, who must have been a wargamer as well.

Heard these were published by David Arneson after TSR broke up, and were followed by John Hill's "Johnny Reb" rules.

There was a review plus some battle reports in some issues of The Courier back in the early 80s which got some gamers interested in the rules. After that, however, there was a new fire calculation sheet produced by a gamer that was published in The Courier, but that was about it. I still have my copy and there are some interesting ideas in there, but today's gamers would never go for that system.

I loved the lack of dice rolls. I get so tired of an opponent's incompetence getting rewarded with lucky dice. Really a beautiful set of rules Great illustrations

I hated the lack of dice rolls. 😄

You know, you could argue the rules, but the introduction had the best explanation of representation you could ever show a beginning wargamer--a little sketch of three or four miniatures on a stand with an arrow indicating "one base width." Below that was a sketch of about 60 infantry in three ranks with an arrow indicating whatever a base width was supposed to be in yards. I need to put that in a binder somewhere, next to Wessencraft's description of the change in viewpoints for different levels of his game.

@ aegiscg47
Well, I recently played them, and have every intention of trying them out on today's players!

I think the "QRS" can be shortened by eliminating the unusual aspects of breastworks and digging fortifications and water travel [after all, it IS the "Complete Brigadier"] for one that is more focused on a specific period and scenario, say Napoleonics or war of 1812.

Aside from that I'd say they give much better "feel" than most games today which quite frankly feel very "gamey", as in you feel like you are playing the game mechanics, not acting out history.

It also didn't take much longer than any of my fast-play games, once I got rolling with it.

@ Microbiggie
Yeah, it certainly makes one think, doesn't it? How much chance does one want in a game. And altho the "buckets of dice" people say that the rolls all even out, they don't, actually, and the right fool in the wrong place / time / decision can pull it all out with a win.

So working with TCB has definitely got me thinking about how much chance is TOO MUCH chance in a battalion level game?

Anyway, haven't been making much progress with finding author or illustrator…

I've considered these some of the best written rules I've played. They are well organized, easy to read, and the illustrations match the rules. So it was with great disappointment that I quickly became bored with them due to the lack of any randomness. Once one knew the modifiers for a given situation, it was easy to understand the outcome and to know what would happen (such as knowing when Unit A would always break when struck by Unit B in the flank). Even adopting the use of a ten sided die to determine whether or not one or two figures when lost when the firing calculation produced a result of 1.4 (i.e., roll a 1 through 4 and you lose 2 figures whereas rolling a 5+ means you lose only one) didn't affect knowing how the morale modifiers would add up. I agree that too much randomness makes for a poorer game, but I just found these rules also didn't make for a good game.

J F Grossman also wrote these as less detailed book but similar.

Copied from Google AI search

Game basics
Title: Field Regulations
Author: John Grossman
Publisher: TSR Hobbies
Year: 1976
Game Type: Miniature or paper-and-pencil wargame
About the game
Focus: 18th-century land battles, with a focus on the American Revolution.
Objective: To simulate the rigid, formal, and deliberate maneuvers of the period's warfare.
Gameplay: Rules are kept simple to ensure playability, not complexity.
Unit Types: Includes specific rules for militia, riflemen, and native Americans to reflect the American theater.
Adaptability: With minor adjustments, the rules can be used for European 18th-century battles.
Campaigns: Includes basic rules for setting up a campaign series.

Gamertom, We did add percentage dice for the chance of losing an additional figure also. One of my mates was a math major so he also disliked the 'predictability' of same chain of actions. But other mates (and myself) who were consistently victims of crap die rolls relished the ability to take fate into their own hands
I also liked the scale of play

I had them. Found out they didn't use dice and never played it.

@Gamertom
I guess I don't see how I can possibly get bored with them, certainly not with a live opponent. The unexpected will be what the opponent chooses to do, which is not predictable, and will result in situations with predictable outcomes.

Playing against myself, I found that I wasn't able to plan everything out well enough, and still ended up in unexpected situations. Granted, I'm not experienced with the rules.

Personally, I was thinking of just introducing a small morale chance to go right or left a column [e.g. on a '1' you go left, on a '6' you go right], and I like dicing for the fractions in shooting.

With a couple of tweaks, these could easily be my favorite Horse and Musket rules for the MU=Battalion level of play.

While I also really like Lasalle, I think that it has a gamey "feel" so it will all depend on what flavor I'm in the mood for…

@ Gamertom:
One question – did you play with the 3 minute limit on writing orders? I would think that makes it difficult for people to pre-calculate what the modifiers will add up to. Even overlooking one modifier may lead to a different result…

Just a thought.

Obviously, my first game, I didn't play with any time limit to write the orders, especially since I was playing both sides. I made more than enough errors to keep it interesting and unexpected! haha… :)

I mainly played it using scenarios from Grants "Scenarios for Wargames" book and each scenario has a limited number of units which may make a difference. It's been over 30 years since I've played the rules so I don't recall details. I do recall that I didn't think of modifiers before writing orders. I went through the modifiers when needed, but learned the outcomes for situations that tended to repeat. Once I learned those, I better knew how to set up the circumstances that favored my side (though you couldn't always do that as certain troop types were almost always doomed such as militia versus regular units).

I wish you the best in playing the rules and hope you continue to enjoy them.

Fair enough. I only have two plays with the rules, so am definitely not an expert.

I'm trying not to second guess or add up in advance, but it is hard when I'm also trying to learn the rules.

Overall, a great gaming experience for someone who wants to "re-enact history" rather than "play a game to win".