Strategic level games on any wars that lasted for more than two years will often see players go off in strange directions. I think it is far better to study a war on the strategic level by having scenarios covering only about one year.
@@XLEGION1 And the American Revolution had campaigns from April 1775 to Oct 1781, six and a half years. Moreover, many months during that time saw no significant combat, producing a major simulation problem.
@@johnsakelaris7 Couldn't agree more. It's a difficult thing to demonstrate 'nothing happened' during a long time period in a wargame. I tried to alleviate that somewhat by the use of the 'tie die roll' and making the turn record advance faster. But even that goes only so far.
@@XLEGION1 Maybe another way is to just have the turns move faster. So the last turn ends, and you roll and bang, its two and a half years later, London has pulled out troops and the Navy is off in bermuda. Or next year London is pissed and you get huge reinforcements and are expected to use them NOW.
Thanks, mr. Collins for your very constructive criticisms of these amr wargames. You are very concise and consistent about the historical/playability angle that every player faces. I was first introduced to your channel via the Avalon hill Gettysburg 125th game analysis.
Hi Gilbert hope youre doing well (haven’t communicated w you in years when I reviewed your book on 1812). Great video, and it's exactly why I'm working on designing a game that simulates a single 15-minute battle in the South, down to the platoon level and covering no more than a few hundred acres of real estate.
You're right about the AWI being a snapshot style of warfare that only focuses on the battles and not the campaign. Not much movement is happening in the overview campaign setting sadly
Hey Grant! I did play "Liberty" several times and when I'm in the mood for a 'lighter' take on the entire war I would play it anytime. I actually don't have my copy anymore but I remember it with affection. What you attempted to accomplish is a big task. I bought your first game "Quebec 1759' waaaaaay back in 1971 and I thought it was amazing. I'm still trying to decide whether or not to purchase your 50th Anniversary edition as it looks darn good.
As an American I’m perfectly fine with hearing that Britain and France didn’t care as much about the colonies as they cared about Caribbean holdings. No offense taken, sir
i'd think it would be hard featuring the Caribbean so much would just frustrate the player who bought a revolution game. And how do you keep either or both player from just moving huge forces to the 13 colony front?
I'm not quite clear on your question. What 'large forces' would be in the Caribbean? Forces there were deliberately kept small due to 'yellow fever' which killed more soldiers than lost in battle. It seems to me that you could not have played 'War for America' since there are naval factors that limit the transition of troops from the Caribbean to 13 colonies.
Mr Collins, did you ever explain why you stopped playing GMTs GBoAR series? If I missed that please direct me . Your recent game is a beautiful production.
@@ThomasPuzin-l6o No, I have not revealed that yet and probably will not in the near future. It has to do with a new series of Revolution games coming out that I think are far superior but it is too early to reveal that yet
TLDR; he never explains what the problem is. He just rambles. forever says “I’m gonna get to the problem” never does. Tell us the problem and then show examples.
Agreed....I think it's something to do w/ the fact that the games mentioned try to cover the entire war vs just the ones mentioned that cover the war in the north & the war in the south separately. You just can't combine them, is his point. Why exactly? I have no idea & would've been nice if he articulated the reasons more clearly.
At the 5 min mark he says that the war in the North mainly involved foraging, raids and skirmishes. He went on to say that it is difficult to include this in rules already catering for the different kind of warfare that took place in the South. Earlier in the video, the part you dismiss as "rambling", he says that wargames that focus solely on either the North or South do not have this problem. At 5:28 he states in a single sentence exactly what the problem is and then gives examples of how he tried to overcome it. He can explain it for you but he can't understand it for you.
@@andrewwalsh531 I guess the video needs a 'part 2' to give examples of what I am saying. But my main point was that covering the entire war in ONE game is difficult if not impossible since the War in the South was completely different than the war in the north. Wargamers will NOT do what occured by the historical commanders after 1778.
Your argument is interesting but hardly comprehensive. If nobody "gave a hoot" about what happened in the colonies, why were there any battles there? Your statement requires some academic framing you haven't provided, so I don't find your statements believable. Not that I disagree the Revolution was impacted by events in the Caribbean. But you need to support your argument substantially.
Yes, that is what can happen when you do a 'live video' unscripted. I don't want to work from a script. Some of those can be rather boring and sometimes just as un-focused. Sorry, it was not all you expected.
@@XLEGION1 Yes, I prefer unscripted videos but I kept waiting for some kind of justification as to why nobody gives a hoot, and you still haven't explained why they obviously did give a hoot because men fought and died, so the very premise make no sense, scripted or not, sorry. This is my last comment on your video, thanks for listening. Normally I find your videos more compelling, sorry for being disappointed! cheers
I love your videoes Gilbert! Fascinating period of time to study, and its great that games can be a conduit for learning about things like this.
Thank you Robert, I enjoy making them and am always 'learning'
Mr. Collins your unbiased honesty in to describe the mechanics is refreshing... I enjoyed this video very much sir...Thankyou!
Strategic level games on any wars that lasted for more than two years will often see players go off in strange directions. I think it is far better to study a war on the strategic level by having scenarios covering only about one year.
I like studying 'the big picture' too, but the scenarios, if properly researched are great learning tools too.
@@XLEGION1 And the American Revolution had campaigns from April 1775 to Oct 1781, six and a half years. Moreover, many months during that time saw no significant combat, producing a major simulation problem.
@@johnsakelaris7 Couldn't agree more. It's a difficult thing to demonstrate 'nothing happened' during a long time period in a wargame. I tried to alleviate that somewhat by the use of the 'tie die roll' and making the turn record advance faster. But even that goes only so far.
@@XLEGION1 Maybe another way is to just have the turns move faster. So the last turn ends, and you roll and bang, its two and a half years later, London has pulled out troops and the Navy is off in bermuda. Or next year London is pissed and you get huge reinforcements and are expected to use them NOW.
Thanks, mr. Collins for your very constructive criticisms of these amr wargames. You are very concise and consistent about the historical/playability angle that every player faces. I was first introduced to your channel via the Avalon hill Gettysburg 125th game analysis.
Hi Gilbert hope youre doing well (haven’t communicated w you in years when I reviewed your book on 1812). Great video, and it's exactly why I'm working on designing a game that simulates a single 15-minute battle in the South, down to the platoon level and covering no more than a few hundred acres of real estate.
It would have been nice to put your thesis statement in the first paragraph, instead of just before the conclusion, i.e. @ 5:39.
You're right about the AWI being a snapshot style of warfare that only focuses on the battles and not the campaign. Not much movement is happening in the overview campaign setting sadly
Dear Gilbert, thank you for another excellent video. Have a great 2025.
Gilbert: What do you think of Liberty, Columbia Games take on the American Revolutionary War?
Hey Grant! I did play "Liberty" several times and when I'm in the mood for a 'lighter' take on the entire war I would play it anytime. I actually don't have my copy anymore but I remember it with affection. What you attempted to accomplish is a big task. I bought your first game "Quebec 1759' waaaaaay back in 1971 and I thought it was amazing. I'm still trying to decide whether or not to purchase your 50th Anniversary edition as it looks darn good.
Unfortunately his reply is not visible!
Speaking of historical events I agree. The same seems true with the French and Indian War .
As an American I’m perfectly fine with hearing that Britain and France didn’t care as much about the colonies as they cared about Caribbean holdings.
No offense taken, sir
i'd think it would be hard featuring the Caribbean so much would just frustrate the player who bought a revolution game. And how do you keep either or both player from just moving huge forces to the 13 colony front?
I'm not quite clear on your question. What 'large forces' would be in the Caribbean? Forces there were deliberately kept small due to 'yellow fever' which killed more soldiers than lost in battle. It seems to me that you could not have played 'War for America' since there are naval factors that limit the transition of troops from the Caribbean to 13 colonies.
5:42. Yes, you did....
I’ve always enjoyed AWI games. 1776 campaign game was epic for its time.
It's still one of my favourites
Mr Collins, did you ever explain why you stopped playing GMTs GBoAR series? If I missed that please direct me . Your recent game is a beautiful production.
@@ThomasPuzin-l6o No, I have not revealed that yet and probably will not in the near future. It has to do with a new series of Revolution games coming out that I think are far superior but it is too early to reveal that yet
TLDR; he never explains what the problem is. He just rambles. forever says “I’m gonna get to the problem” never does. Tell us the problem and then show examples.
Agreed....I think it's something to do w/ the fact that the games mentioned try to cover the entire war vs just the ones mentioned that cover the war in the north & the war in the south separately. You just can't combine them, is his point. Why exactly? I have no idea & would've been nice if he articulated the reasons more clearly.
At the 5 min mark he says that the war in the North mainly involved foraging, raids and skirmishes. He went on to say that it is difficult to include this in rules already catering for the different kind of warfare that took place in the South. Earlier in the video, the part you dismiss as "rambling", he says that wargames that focus solely on either the North or South do not have this problem. At 5:28 he states in a single sentence exactly what the problem is and then gives examples of how he tried to overcome it. He can explain it for you but he can't understand it for you.
@@andrewwalsh531 I guess the video needs a 'part 2' to give examples of what I am saying. But my main point was that covering the entire war in ONE game is difficult if not impossible since the War in the South was completely different than the war in the north. Wargamers will NOT do what occured by the historical commanders after 1778.
Nice job.
Your argument is interesting but hardly comprehensive. If nobody "gave a hoot" about what happened in the colonies, why were there any battles there? Your statement requires some academic framing you haven't provided, so I don't find your statements believable. Not that I disagree the Revolution was impacted by events in the Caribbean. But you need to support your argument substantially.
Yes, that is what can happen when you do a 'live video' unscripted. I don't want to work from a script. Some of those can be rather boring and sometimes just as un-focused. Sorry, it was not all you expected.
No he doesn't. It's a video expressing an opinion about wargames not a thesis on the American Revolution.
@niceguysi394 Thank you. That statement is 'spot on'. In a ten minute unscripted video IT IS an opinion not a thesis.
@niceguysi394 it's not a very well-founded opinion, though. I didn't ask for a thesis, did I? Way to exaggerate. well done.
@@XLEGION1 Yes, I prefer unscripted videos but I kept waiting for some kind of justification as to why nobody gives a hoot, and you still haven't explained why they obviously did give a hoot because men fought and died, so the very premise make no sense, scripted or not, sorry. This is my last comment on your video, thanks for listening. Normally I find your videos more compelling, sorry for being disappointed! cheers
Absolutely no problems with AHs 1776.
Interesting: No problems? Hey, I love the game but the Combat Results Table has no resemblance to warfare in the 18th Century.
Wow. Um, yes the British and French "gave a hoot" about the war in the colonies after 1778.
What a bizarre thesis.