Great discussion, everyone!  Here are a few replies:

@torros – I promise, promise, promise I’m not trying to be pedantic here, but in all honesty, I said “simplistic” – not “simple.”  I know it sounds like I’m splitting hairs there, but I guess I’m saying that I completely agree with you.  Simple does not equal simplistic.  Chess is a simple game.  The rules could probably fit on half a sheet of paper.  But I wouldn’t call chess “simplistic.”  😀

@volleyfireandy – It’s easy looking back with nostalgia, but there have always been lots of games, but only a select few that appeal to the individuals tastes.   – Except there are those of us who play these older games right now, every weekend, with players who have never tried these games or even these kinds of games and who are constantly impressed with their realism, historical accuracy, and tactical detail.  So unless we’re being nostalgic for “last Sunday …”

Yes, there are some well-designed game systems out there in recent years.  They are the minority.  They also don’t get as much coverage because they don’t appeal to the broader market as much as *ahem* “other” games.  In previous decades there was much more of an even mix between “good” games and “bad” games.  I can’t really argue about “coverage” because there was no internet back then, so any comparisons we make would be apples vs. oranges.

@chaingun – As for rules … the only colour you had was the cover, the rest of the booklet was black and white and with no pictures. – You’re describing about half a dozen of my all-time favorite games, actually.  PanzerBlitz, Panzer Leader, Arab-Israeli Wars, GDW’s Assault series,  Fire When Ready, Car Wars, Avalon Hill’s Tactics II (okay, that’s more of a gateway tutorial game) … long story short, you’ve made me really nostalgic now!

@osbad – I would argue that there are objectively speaking, many more people playing what can be termed “wargames” now than there were back in the late 70’s when I started.  That really depends on one’s definition of “wargame.”

I am sorry you aren’t enjoying the current era of gaming as much as you would like…  No worries, I’m enjoying it fine.  I just don’t really buy anything, unless it’s from one of the exception games I listed previously.

But I feel that is a subjective view not an objective one.  Absolutely it’s subjective.  And the reverse is not?  When someone says we’re in the Golden Age of Wargaming, that’s not subjective as well?  Pretty sure this whole conversation is subjective.

@koldan – The old rule sets still exist, at least if noone used a time machine and erased them from history.  Couldn’t agree more.  We run them every weekend, on-line with an ever-growing community of other people who expect just a little more from a game system.

@maledrakh  …  hundreds of fiddly little cardboard square-pieces type board games such as advanced squad leader and the like. Man, I love hex and counter games,  especially from the 70s and 80s, but even I can admit that sometimes Advanced Squad Leader (the famous one) was a touch much.  Also, back then publishers were limited by the physical size of the box, which meant the map boards could only be so big, which meant the hexes could only be so big, but the counters couldn’t be too small or you couldn’t read them …

This was (I agree with you) an issue when battles would condense to certain important areas, where players would max-stack assaults and counter-assaults all into just a few hexes … then  you had to get something out of the bottom of a stack you wound up screwing up other stacks, etc …

More modern H&C games fix this with larger map sheets or virtual map sheets and better printing / publishing, where the hexes can be larger and clearer, and counters can fit in hexes with a lot more elbow room, making them easier to handle in high density mapboard areas.

Oh, and small detail … the PUNCH CARDS have gotten 100 times better.  Today’s punchcards the counters just fall out of the sheet, there are no “hanging corner chads” like used to be the bane of small-counter games like ASL.  😀

@cpauls1 – Awesome reply!

It struck me as a blatant money grab, as I had to invest once again in hundreds of dollars worth of books to stay current (GW is excellent at this sort of manipulation) – Oh, they’re not the only one.  Other companies I have in mind that may have done this to a smaller extent, however, have seemed to CORRECTED this in more recent releases.  So I have hope.

I expect I modified our house AD&D rules as much as you modified the original Panzerblitz rules, while staying within the same framework. – I pretty much just took the Arab-Israeli Wars (“third edition”) rules engine and retrofitted it to PanzerBlitz (“first edition) and Panzer Leader (“second edition”).

 Yet the rules are at most a small booklet, as with AIW, which I believe was the last Avalon Hill version of the game – yes, this is the last AH version.  Not really a fan of the more recent MultiMan Publishing attempt at “Panzer Leader Hill of Death.”  Other releases like Tosach Miniatures’ “Tactical Combat Middle East” (Panzer Leader for 1991 / 2003 Gulf Wars) are better.

But I’m not sure AIW is a “short” rules system.  With no charts, designer’s notes, tables, or even scenarios, the rulebook is a smidge over 30,000 words (ran the .pdf through a MS Word word count).   With scenarios this would creep closer to 45,000 / 50,000.  That’s half a novel these days.

Physically the rules feel like a booklet because they triple-columned that shit with font so small a flea would need a microscope to read it.  🙁  Maybe I’m just getting old and I hate putting on reader glasses.  🙁 🙁 🙁