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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Gilbert, I'm sorry that a lot of these people don't seem to see what you are getting at and that is that the Caribbean colonies were much more important to the British because of the wealth that the sugar plantations generated for the British empire. This meant that once the French and other European naval powers entered the war and endangered these colonies the British had to basically abandon the war in the north and defend their Caribbean colonies instead. And in addition to that their loss of total naval supremacy made their war in America almost impossible to win. I bought your game, haven't played it yet but I have read the rules and am looking forward to it.
Thanks Eric. Yes, it's hard when people will take one sentence out of a 10 minute video and convert it to 'my thesis' as they call it. Nothing could be further from the truth. Some people have to do a lot more in depth reading about the American Revolution to really 'get it'. I love reading about the revolutionary campaigns in North America and in Canada. But when people 'freak out' about me saying that to Great Britain the Caribbean was more important to them than the 13 Colonies....well, it makes me wonder about what they have read. You can't understand the period of the American Revolution by watching a History Channel video on TV. (And I watch them too, they are good but they have to be tempered with some serious reading)
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
Forgive me, sir. I don’t know if I got your answer to the question. Are you saying the problem with all American Revolution campaign games is that the war in the north SHOULD be totally boring (stationary armies with small skirmishes for supplies and such) but designers try to make them more interesting than they really were (whole armies moving to take over cities and whatnot)? And that most of the action in the war actually were naval movements in the Caribbean, but that is not usually portrayed in most AMR games. That is what I got from the video. Am I correct? Wrong?
M...m.m....mm I guess I'm not very clear on making my point. Not easy in a 20 minute video which is unscripted and it's a one-man show with me operating the camera. On the contrary, the war in the north is my favourite portion of the American Revolution to study, especially Burgoyne's campaign. In a nutshell, what I'm basically trying to say is that any game on the American Revolution has a difficulty with the four-year period in the north where NO MAJOR campaigns occurred after the summer of 1778. Some people have decided to make it sound as if it's my masters thesis, which of course it is not. It's a 20 minute simple opinionated video. Nothing more.
@ Please don’t take offense. I am just saying that *I* didn’t understand quite what you were saying about ALL AMR games having the same problem. So basically it is that in real life, there was not much movement after 1778 in the north, but that would not translate to a very interesting game. Correct?
@@onyxpenguin4210 More or less, the answer is yes. Each game designer has handled the problem in a similar manner by kind of 'ignoring' what really happened. But then, players never play the same way the historical commanders utilized their forces.
Similar to the French and Indian or Seven Years War. Great Britain knowing the immense value of the Caribbean. Canada was of little immediate value, the colonies were not likely to fall to the French. But excluding the French from valuable colonies and gaining said values brought Great Britain to world dominance
I'm working on my own game on the 'French and Indian War' and I'm finding it much easier to portray than the American Revolution. Different in many ways. But the geography dictated the strategy even more so than the American Revolution.
Mr. Collins your unbiased honesty in to describe the mechanics is refreshing... I enjoyed this video very much sir...Thankyou!
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'
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.
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.
Dear Gilbert, thank you for another excellent video. Have a great 2025.
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
Why do you like Dunnigan's American Revolution game?
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
1776 was NOT for beginners. Still have and love it.
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!
I’ve always enjoyed AWI games. 1776 campaign game was epic for its time.
It's still one of my favourites
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.
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.
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.
Speaking of historical events I agree. The same seems true with the French and Indian War .
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
It would have been nice to put your thesis statement in the first paragraph, instead of just before the conclusion, i.e. @ 5:39.
Gilbert, I'm sorry that a lot of these people don't seem to see what you are getting at and that is that the Caribbean colonies were much more important to the British because of the wealth that the sugar plantations generated for the British empire. This meant that once the French and other European naval powers entered the war and endangered these colonies the British had to basically abandon the war in the north and defend their Caribbean colonies instead. And in addition to that their loss of total naval supremacy made their war in America almost impossible to win. I bought your game, haven't played it yet but I have read the rules and am looking forward to it.
Thanks Eric. Yes, it's hard when people will take one sentence out of a 10 minute video and convert it to 'my thesis' as they call it. Nothing could be further from the truth. Some people have to do a lot more in depth reading about the American Revolution to really 'get it'. I love reading about the revolutionary campaigns in North America and in Canada. But when people 'freak out' about me saying that to Great Britain the Caribbean was more important to them than the 13 Colonies....well, it makes me wonder about what they have read. You can't understand the period of the American Revolution by watching a History Channel video on TV. (And I watch them too, they are good but they have to be tempered with some serious reading)
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.
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
Forgive me, sir. I don’t know if I got your answer to the question. Are you saying the problem with all American Revolution campaign games is that the war in the north SHOULD be totally boring (stationary armies with small skirmishes for supplies and such) but designers try to make them more interesting than they really were (whole armies moving to take over cities and whatnot)?
And that most of the action in the war actually were naval movements in the Caribbean, but that is not usually portrayed in most AMR games.
That is what I got from the video. Am I correct? Wrong?
M...m.m....mm I guess I'm not very clear on making my point. Not easy in a 20 minute video which is unscripted and it's a one-man show with me operating the camera. On the contrary, the war in the north is my favourite portion of the American Revolution to study, especially Burgoyne's campaign. In a nutshell, what I'm basically trying to say is that any game on the American Revolution has a difficulty with the four-year period in the north where NO MAJOR campaigns occurred after the summer of 1778. Some people have decided to make it sound as if it's my masters thesis, which of course it is not. It's a 20 minute simple opinionated video. Nothing more.
@ Please don’t take offense. I am just saying that *I* didn’t understand quite what you were saying about ALL AMR games having the same problem. So basically it is that in real life, there was not much movement after 1778 in the north, but that would not translate to a very interesting game. Correct?
@@onyxpenguin4210 More or less, the answer is yes. Each game designer has handled the problem in a similar manner by kind of 'ignoring' what really happened. But then, players never play the same way the historical commanders utilized their forces.
@@XLEGION1 thank you, sir
5:42. Yes, you did....
Nice job.
Similar to the French and Indian or Seven Years War. Great Britain knowing the immense value of the Caribbean. Canada was of little immediate value, the colonies were not likely to fall to the French. But excluding the French from valuable colonies and gaining said values brought Great Britain to world dominance
I'm working on my own game on the 'French and Indian War' and I'm finding it much easier to portray than the American Revolution. Different in many ways. But the geography dictated the strategy even more so than the American Revolution.
Wow. Um, yes the British and French "gave a hoot" about the war in the colonies after 1778.
What a bizarre thesis.
@@robertholmstrom7394 see my reply to the guy above you where I explain the use of hyperbole to illustrate a point
Is tea still taxed in Amurika? 😂 I bet it is! 😂 So it was all for nothing Yanks!