Great Battles of History (GMT)

I've finally picked up a copy of Deluxe SPQR after having pre-ordered and subsequently canceled it many a year ago. I'm very eager to get it to the table as its got what I love most of all in games. Is anyone else out there a fan of the series? What experience have you had with it? I'm most curious in the "lesser-known" titles in the series i.e. Cataphract, Caesar, etc.

I own Deluxe SPQR (+Barbarian module), the Siege of Alesia and Devil's Horseman. I've played Deluxe Alexander, a Tyrant scenario, a short scenario from Alesia and Ayn Jalut from Devil's Horsemen.

I really enjoyed Alexander, and the Tyrant module was especially fun. It covers Syracuse fighting off Greek Phalanxes in all their bloody goodness. It's quite amazing to watch the Phalanxes tear through the front lines of the barbarian armies only to be picked to shreds by javelins and skirmishers. Very fun, and I look forward to trying Barbarian which also contains Syracuse.

Alesia was a bit of a let down as the system is simplified greatly to allow for wave after wave of Gallic forces. This sounds like it might be alright, but as the Roman player it can be frustrating since you often are unable to get reactionary facing changes with your legions who tend to get surrounded and knocked off. It can make game fairly static - smash in through the enemy line, try to grab defensive terrain and wait out the next wave of Gauls. I'll definitely try it again, but I would rather pick another game from the series first.

Devil's Horsemen is very different as it covers Mongolian light cavalry. You get some interesting maneuvers with Cavalry, but quickly run out of "missle low/missle no" markers for your masses of cavalry. The battlefields are pretty bland, but I would like to try some of the larger scenarios.

I'm interested in the late-Roman games in the series, but haven't gotten to try them yet. They're next on my list for certain.

Never played the system. I guess this is one of those that is often cited as being more about historical study than gaming, given the scenarios. I've heard there are a few modules with great even battles (Tyrant, I think?) but most of them are mostly suitable for solo games since one side sucks.

I've only played the Alexander one. I have to say that I think it was more interesting than fun overall. The system depicts the particulars of different combat doctrines very well and there's TONS of chrome (love that "hoplites drift to the left"- they favored their left side since they had a shield there)and the battles are interesting even when one side completely sucks. I do think it's a good solo system since you don't have to teach somebody else how to play (practically impossible, really) and you can kind of set it up and pick at it at lesiures.

In all, I think MEN OF IRON is the better game if only because it's more playable and it still sort of has the GBoH feel. But that being said, there's a lot to explore in GBoH, Orlok points out some of the series' assets.

Overall, the system is too heavy for me, and prefer not to play grossly unbalanced scenarios. However, being a fan of naval combat, I really enjoy War Galley, which plays like smash-mouth football or a rugby scrum.

I think you guys are relying too much from what people on TOS say about the system. Alexander is by far the most unbalanced as far as scenarios, but there are plenty of options for scenarios and within scenarios to bring the balance more even.

The system also isn't as gargantuan as it might seem, and is actually very teachable. My first time playing, I had never read the rules, and my opponent explained the system to me well enough that we had no problem playing an entire scenario. In fact, we had 6 people playing the game at my game group, with three new players. It worked out fine.

There is a lot of chrome in the game, but the system itself isn't all that complicated. It's just important to remember how dependent it is on leaders and their individual actions - trumping your opponents turn before they can charge, organizing a line command to bring your phalanxes into combat, etc. It all hinges on the leaders, and individual units are effectively worthless without them.

I really enjoy the system for its simulation details (Hell, I also love Berg's Great Battles of the American Civil War, and equally detailed but equally playable system) but also for how much fun it can be. It's a very rewarding system once you have it down, and some scenarios can be played with relative ease and speed.

I would suggest not ignoring a great system based off of the BGG "wargame" crowd, who seem to mostly be made up of C&C ancients players. These are the people who are hyping "simplified" wargames so much that they seem to think all wargames should by default be simplified. I understand the appeal, but think there is a time and place for everything - GBoH just isn't it! GBoH is still a game, and is not so simulation heavy that it is unplayable, uncompetitive or solo only.

There is also the "simple" GBoH rules, but I can't personally speak of them. I have no experience with them, but I've heard they reduce some elements of the game down to make it a faster play. Not necessarily a better one though.

Count Orlok wrote:

I think you guys are relying too much from what people on TOS say about the system.

Typical FATizen TOSaphobia. My opinion on complexity is formed entirely from the several titles in the series I onced own, and my opinion on the scenario balance is derived from Berg'e designer notes.

Like most complex wargames, passion for the setting helps immensely. I'm almost there with classic Rome to revisit SPQR...

dave wrote:

Count Orlok wrote:

I think you guys are relying too much from what people on TOS say about the system.

Typical FATizen TOSaphobia. My opinion on complexity is formed entirely from the several titles in the series I onced own, and my opinion on the scenario balance is derived from Berg'e designer notes.

Like most complex wargames, passion for the setting helps immensely. I'm almost there with classic Rome to revisit SPQR...

Well, if you've owned the games and played them, that's a different story. I just remember playing it at a convention and someone commenting "I don't want to try that because it's unbalanced". They had never tried it, but were running off of online comments.

There ARE however, balanced scenarios and options if you are more interested in competitive play.

Definitely haven't played it, just relying on TOS and CSW overall buzz.