Washington's Army

I bought Peter Pig's Washington's Army rules and so far I am ... disappointed. I guess it is my own fault. Everyone on the RFCM forum said it was like Bloody Barons and some other rules, all of which I don't have and have never seen played or tried, so I should have asked more questions before purchase. (Actually, I am sure I would have bought in anyway.)

So what's wrong? I still haven't finished the rules, but a few things leap out:

• Still reading, but it seems to assume that all Patriot militia did not have bayonets, nor were trained in their use anyway. Any decent reading of the Southern campaign would reveal that much of the militia had years of experience, some as Continentals, some as State Line, some against the Indians.
• British and Continental line infantry cannot use loose order - which may mean something different to them than it does to me - but this means neither can perform "loose files and an American scramble", which seems strange.
• It uses a Warmaster-like unit activation system. The one element of Warmaster that I did not like and that is the one they used. Worse still, it is a more complex version.
• The basing scheme makes units look ugly. I was worried about going two ranks with American War of Independence Wargaming (AWIW), but a four rank line just doesn't cut it for me.

I will keep reading and reporting. After all, maybe these things are fine for someone else.

As a side note, my first two Peter Pig rule purchases were Square Bashing and Conquerors and Kings. My last two were Washington's Army and Poor Bloody Infantry and I must say that these last two a decidedly different - and more complex - than the first two. Who knows? Some day I may actually play a game with one of them. (The only reason I haven't played a game with Conquerors and Kings is that I have DBA sized units and armies.)