Some of you may be hearing of a new ruleset coming out for The American Revolution, War of 1812, and The French and Indian War. Being a member of HMGS Great Lakes myself, I felt it only necessary to add a designers notes column about my rules "Redcoat!" to let those who haven't heard anything about them yet to learn something new.

While the AWI and similar era has been gamed with several set of rules, I didn't like many of them for several reasons. One of the most successful was "Patriots and Loyalists," which is in my opinion one of the best out there. However, even then it followed a typical syndrome with most wargaming rules -- not enough action and too much "looking up." At first Patriots and Loyalists seemed a viable rule set to try out. Not until I read the shooting section did I change my mind. It had around 7 steps to shooting, which I found ridiculous. Eventually, after several ideas, I created my own set not only to make for a fast moving game and realistic troop action, but to create a commander's perspective to things without letting the gamer (or the commander) pay attention to details which on the battlefield would not have been known.

While no ruleset can be 100% realistic, after all, the horror of war will never be known, and casualty rates are never exact, the designer must strive for a 90% realism rate (give or take some points). What I found were gamers paying too much attention to casaulty rates when really what counted was unit stance and morale. Any AWI buff knows that the battles themselves were decided on Morale first and foremost. Even those battles with 90% casaulty rates (massacres!) were still decided by morale unless every single man was out of action, in which case that happened in smaller engagements.

The rules were designed to do grand tactical battles from 1000 troops+. Once the player felt that he/she was indeed making decisions like the real commander, the next part was the most difficult -- create a realistic engagement but also make it easy on the gamer. With this in mind, once again the simpler apraoch was given. Units with 10 different morale and combat factors were banished. As a result, units were given their simple ability as one big factor. Units were categorized according to how they fought in the period, not according to how the gamer felt they fought. In other words, the unit types fought as a commander thought they should be used. Consequently, the main picture of battlefield action was shown, with one piece of the puzzle over with.

But what about the battles themselves, tactically? Why did British line fight well in woods vs Native Indians and simply get a reduced morale level. This was what the battles of the period were based on, what the purpose of each and every unit was. British commanders taught in the old Frederick the Great linear formation class found that British line units with unaimed fire could not engage in a battle with irregulars in wooded terrain. Furthermore, units such as militia could not fight in the open. What results is the greatest use of combined arms since the Ancient period and until World War II. With the American frontier came a variety of units, each fighting in its own role according to its ability. Thus, the War of 1812 and French and Indian War lent themselves as parallel wars that could be done in the same set of rules.

Although there is not nearly enough space here to discuss why and how else the rules were done, it is hoped the gamer has gotten a nice overview of the rules. For more info about Redcoat! visit http://hometown.aol.com/sagri18805/index.html.