What happened to GMT?

Seriously, I recently received Asia Engulfed and components-wise it has the best price-performance ratio I've ever seen in a GMT. Starting with a glossy high-quality box (which doesn't fart), it features a cardboard map, an inlay(!), big round counters (among the standard ones), lots of laminated player aids (like battle boards, reference sheets, etc.), a pad of easy-calculation sheets to help you plan your purchases, dice of the same quality I once paid 0.50 (euro-)cent apiece and well the "colorful" blocks.

There's currently a discussion on BGG where users state that the map is ugly ... I guess they never touched "Victory in the Pacific" yet. I can't complain about the map, although of course it is not of "Clash of Arms" style (which are perfect if you didn't know).

I can only hope GMT keeps up with the great quality.

What's wrong with VITP? I picked that up a couple of months ago for $10, and it looks fine to me.

--Mike L.

They bitch about GMT because it's politically correct to bitch about GMT, but ask a simple question about AGricola and they rip your head off and shit down your neck...

You *really* need to see FAB: Bulge. Color rulebook and playeraids, impeccable map and even an intro scenario on the an extra mapsheet... writing a post on it in a second.

Gary Sax wrote:

You *really* need to see FAB: Bulge. Color rulebook and playeraids, impeccable map and even an intro scenario on the an extra mapsheet... writing a post on it in a second.

My FAB: The Bulge preorder came in today, I like what I see. No mounted map unfortunately, but I got the map to lay flat by back-bending against the creases a bit. I would've preferred unit depictions instead of the boring NATO symbols, but that's made up for by the great-looking map.

You need plexiglass.

It's an investment for a life time and you'll never worry about paper maps anymore.

mtlawson wrote:

What's wrong with VITP? I picked that up a couple of months ago for $10, and it looks fine to me.

It's a great game, I just talked about the four-color map: pink, light blue, green and brown.

GMT makes fine games. For some reason, Eurogamers seem to think that the main development cost is just in the raw materials that the game is made of. If you're just paying for the same brown cubes that you already have in seventeen other boxes, about any price would be too much. With GMT games, you're paying for the game system and the research that goes into making those games. Why they can't understand that is beyond me.

thdizzy wrote:

GMT makes fine games. For some reason, Eurogamers seem to think that the main development cost is just in the raw materials that the game is made of. If you're just paying for the same brown cubes that you already have in seventeen other boxes, about any price would be too much. With GMT games, you're paying for the game system and the research that goes into making those games. Why they can't understand that is beyond me.

There is alot of research that goes into making a game based on a battle or a series of battles. You have to research the terrain, the units that fought, their training, their equipment, etc. And then to try and make that so it could apply to a series of battles is a bigger trick.

As for the debate about paper maps...I like paper maps. In some cases, I like them better than the mounted maps that come in other games.

The amount of research that goes into GMT games is amazing. I actually enjoy reading the historical notes almost as much as playing the game. It's not like in Euros where the theme is just pasted on to distract people from the fact that they're just moving brown cubes around. The theme IS the game.

GMT games actually have a bibliography. NOt many Euros have one of those.

Nothing at all is wrong with GMT.

If you are a war gamer they are whats keeping the hobby going. The gold standard, similar to FFG for AT games.

the dickheads over at BBG bitch about the cost and paper maps etc. (I like paper maps for wargames but maybe i am old school)
The fact is very few of them actually play these games (most Bgg users would run from the rule books) and so it is PC to bitch about them.

IMHO GMT is great, and I hope they continue to improve quality where they can.

-M

I agree wholeheartedly Mal.

In the last month or so, with particular thanks to a box of OOP GMT product suddenly appearing on the shelves at a local shop, I've picked up Paths of Glory plus all the expansion material; Thirty Years War: Europe in Agony; Wilderness War; and Men of Iron [this one looks a bit like someone was aiming to create "Advanced Pike and Longbow Leader"; it'll be a while before I wrap my head all the way 'round this game].

I can't wait to get into each of these games. GMT has produced some truly amazing stuff over the last couple of years. The fact that they're keeping the genre alive is great; that they're doing it and still producing games focused on something other than WWII is truly gratifying. I mean, how many games [let alone *great* games] on the 7 Years War are out there?

Do I wish they were 30% cheaper? Sure. But that's why I preorder games I might be remotely interested in (and Blackbeard can't get here soon enough)...

You lucky bastard.

The FLGS's I frequent somehow have a copy of Medieval still around and the PoG Player Guide, but everything else is new GMT stuff. (Except for that copy of Europe Engulfed that keeps calling to me, but I've resisted so far.)

--Mike L.

The only thing that is lacking from GMT is more classic hex and counter game. It has focused really, really heavily on newer style CDGs, block games, card games and other less classic wargame styles. This doesn't bother me personally since I like these newer genres more than traditional hex and counter. But some older school wargames are bothered by it. But they have 40 years of classics hex and counter games if they want them, is my feeling.

Malloc wrote:

Nothing at all is wrong with GMT.

If you are a war gamer they are whats keeping the hobby going. The gold standard, similar to FFG for AT games.

the dickheads over at BBG bitch about the cost and paper maps etc. (I like paper maps for wargames but maybe i am old school)
The fact is very few of them actually play these games (most Bgg users would run from the rule books) and so it is PC to bitch about them.

IMHO GMT is great, and I hope they continue to improve quality where they can.

-M

Seconded. I just wish they'd do a reprint of A-10/Apache Leader. It's kinda Soylent Greenish to look at the "Gulf War" option, knowing full well Saddam's no longer with the rest of the breathing population.