What happened to GMT?

I recently received my FAB:Bulge. Component-wise it is very impressive; the main map is even of "deluxe" quality. They provided an full 2nd set of stickers. It has a separate mini-map for the introduction scenario. The player-aids are top-notch. You won't have to be searching around for homemade ones or make your own. Good stuff.

P

Rliyen wrote:

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.

Somebody is doing reprints of the "Leader" series. They are going to do a Hellcat or Corsair Leader adn then a Phantom Leader. Isn't there a Hornet Leader 2 somewhere?

Gary Sax wrote:

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.

Their hex-n-chit games were often massive undertakings though. The Barbarossa: Army Group North/South/Center series were great but were heading into "monster game" territory. While I don't disagree that new titles like that would be a plus, I think the old grognards need to think about the young grognards in training. If the card-driven and block games, which are almost universally easier to digest right out of the box, get people interested in the hobby, they might eventually decide to upgrade to the "classic" experience and go for something like the Barbarossa series. Plus, I think you're also seeing the wargaming/consim niche companies trying harder to stick to and/or expand in their strongest areas: MMP and Decision Games still have a large hex-n-chit component; Columbia, well, they've always been all about the block; GMT has really embraced the card-driven systems and they've done really great things with it.

Completely agree--the non-old school wargames GMT is making got me into wargaming, after all.

I am really excited for GMTs Stalin's War. Ted Raicer doing a hex / CDG combo - I really hope it pays off. I am fairly new to the war game genre, but having played Leningrad recently I can see where the enjoyment is with a standard hex and counter game, and am looking forward to playing A Victory Lost and Afrika at some point. I like the simplicity here, but it is more of a traditional gaming experience, two minds battling it out for supremacy, with a little luck (dice rolls, chit draws in AVL, hidden units in Leningrad) interfering.

On the other hand the additional chrome from the cards in a game like Barbie to Berlin is absolutely next level. That game blew my mind! And I look forward to playing Shifting Sands tomorrow. So a game that combines the two, well, I can't wait. I know that Empire of the Sun already attempted this but it seems very complicated. I have the game but probably won't attempt playing it for quite some time.

I also am getting hyped on playing FAB the Bulge this month, that game looks incredible.

I know what you are talking about. I've been playing wargames since 25 years and met a lot of those grognards who now criticize the CDG/blocks trend. People playing monster games where the setup only lasts longer than a dozen sessions of FAB: The Bulge campaign game. The guys able to argue for hours about the fact that this T-34 tank was actually refitted with a new gun during this campaign, and that it should then use another modifier for blah blah blah. People obsessed by so-called "historicity". A game that does not re-enacts systematically & exactly what happened on the field is a bad game. A game which makes this possible by using 84 pages of special and artificial rules is brilliant... I'm not interested any more in that kind of games. Quite too long. And focused on absurd details. The 987 counters that you try to manipulate with tweezers might be perfectly accurate, the level of knowledge & control that you have on the troops is everything but "historical".

Not to mention the fact that some of those people are WWII/East Front monomaniacs. And subject to a strange fascination for the grey colour. I met some guys who were only ready to play the german side. It's only funny if they can kick Ivan's ass and show the führer that they were deserving the Knight's Cross for being able to change history. (Strangely, they don't start to complain then about historicity). East Front games are far away the best selling titles. A proven marketing strategy for such a game is to use german wording in the title. "Panzergruppe", "Von Manstein", "Achtung", "Schnell", "Kartoffeln", "Ach so", whatever, as long as it sounds german, it will do the job. Only a liberal like Ted Raicer has the guts to name his new game using the other guy's perspective: "Stalin's War".

The most important part for me in "wargaming" is "gaming". It's a good opportunity to meet my friends, have a chat, drink some wine, and tease my pals when they roll the dice. I play games because these people are nice, friendly, interesting individuals. We love games, but gaming is also a pretext. I wouldn't sit around the table with hardcore grognards with a total lack of humor. That's my rule #1.

Rule #2 is that I expect from a new game that it brings something really newer than all the games published during the last 30 years. It is not so much a matter of "cardboard mounted map" or "nice graphics". Or even topic. I want a game which tries to innovate, create new paradigms, improve playability, focus on the dynamic aspect more than "the chrome for the chrome' sake", provide fun. Gary's excellent review of FAB: The Bulge was able to explain why this title is a true modern wargame (got my box, the game is really a blast !). I'm happy to see that MMP is also following that way. From what I read on CSW, Michael Rinella's "Breakthrough: Cambrai" is a potential winner, too (still 350 orders away from the cut...)

GMT is a great publisher .I do like the sober elegance of their artwork, and the fact that their games have been pretested to the death. I respect them even more for taking risks, trying to propose a broader variety of gaming experiences. The presence of "Sekigahara" or "Leaping Lemmings" on their P500 list will be regarded with contempt by the old legion. But it's GMT'honor to explore new horizons, even if it doesn't sell as fast as Kursk.

That is a great post Milo. I don't have your time in the hobby, so I can't speak to that. I am the definition of a new-school wargamer, 26, and I started in the hobby 1 1/2 to 2 years ago with C+C Ancients and then POG as my first real wargame.

Also, you really touched a nerve with me. I don't like East Front games. It is probably my least favorite subject for a wargame! The slugfest of it all bores me. I don't think I'll buy another one. Also the German thing creeps me out, from my perspective I can't relate at all. In fact for me it is the opposite--I try not to use the Germans, even when I shouldn't mind (WWI POG). It amazes me how attracted some of these guys, especially older guys, are to the minutiae of Hitler's horrible machine.

Don't forget Twilight in the East and The Great War in Europe Deluxe Edition. Those are 1000+ counter games that GMT released in the past 6 months.

I also avoid playing the Germans! Fortunately I have a friend who is evil.

I'm also quite new to the wargaming hobby, and GMT are the ones who snagged me. The quality and depth of their games grabbed me and have kept me coming back. I'm 21 now, having started when I was 18, and I ain't looking to cut back anytime soon.

Thanks GMT, and I love you and your " flimsy paper maps" and "flimsy paper chits" - you're only changing for the better, the naysayers be damned!

I'm continually impressed by the quality of GMT's stuff. I currently own C&C: A + all expansions, Combat Commander: Europe, and Downtown: The Air War Over Hanoi. They're all great products, really high quality too.

I was a little dissapointed when I got Silent War from Compass Games that the map was just regular old paper, it wasn't even on a nice glossy stock like say the maps in Combat Commander: Europe. It just feels flimsy. I've been spoiled by GMT's nice maps though, as well as MMP's and Avalanche Press' maps which are on some pretty decent card type stock.

Plexiglass solves all problems though, so ultimately it doesn't matter.

Gary Sax wrote:

That is a great post Milo. I don't have your time in the hobby, so I can't speak to that. I am the definition of a new-school wargamer, 26, and I started in the hobby 1 1/2 to 2 years ago with C+C Ancients and then POG as my first real wargame.

Also, you really touched a nerve with me. I don't like East Front games. It is probably my least favorite subject for a wargame! The slugfest of it all bores me. I don't think I'll buy another one. Also the German thing creeps me out, from my perspective I can't relate at all. In fact for me it is the opposite--I try not to use the Germans, even when I shouldn't mind (WWI POG). It amazes me how attracted some of these guys, especially older guys, are to the minutiae of Hitler's horrible machine.

It's not just wargames. I collect higher end action figures. It seems like there are about 3 Germans to every Allied figure. If you throw out Americans, the ratio is even worse because it's about 10 Germans for every British soldier. The German high command is almost entirely represented and none of the big players have released Montgomery or Churchill (3 companies have done a Hitler figure...go figure). I also do models on occasion and the Germans are pretty well represented there too. There are also diecast military figures and the Germans are pretty well represented there too. I think alot of it is the "coolness" factor of the Germans, they have camoflage and a billion different tanks and vehicles. The Americans were alot more pratical. At least I hope it's the coolness factor.

I love the GMT games. They are very well researched and most are simple enough that they can be picked up in the first 1 or 2 sessions and in depth enough that it doesn't feel like the same game twice. As for the maps, when you're trying to depict the scale they are trying to depict, paper works much better. (And quite honestly, I prefer the paper maps that tend to not be warped to the piece of shit from the darling of BGG provides).

Heck in alot of cases, the history section that some of the GMT games provide is worth the price of the game (Twilight STruggle comes to mind).

Gary Sax wrote:

... Also the German thing creeps me out, from my perspective I can't relate at all. In fact for me it is the opposite--I try not to use the Germans, even when I shouldn't mind (WWI POG). It amazes me how attracted some of these guys, especially older guys, are to the minutiae of Hitler's horrible machine.

[/i]

I think you need to lighten up a bit, it's virtually ancient history .... otherwise where do you draw the line - the British colonial forces in Africa/India, the 91th century American forces against the natives, Spanish slaughtering the central/south American natives, the Ottoman empire, the Crusades (either side if you're a tad religious).

Also, would you play the Japanese in the Pacific - they were as brutal to civilians and combatants as the Germans ?

If you're playing wargames for a moral factor then I think you're making a big mistake - the pros call them confict simulations and that's all you should be thinking.
It never (has never) even crosses my mind.

Southernman wrote:

Gary Sax wrote:

... Also the German thing creeps me out, from my perspective I can't relate at all. In fact for me it is the opposite--I try not to use the Germans, even when I shouldn't mind (WWI POG). It amazes me how attracted some of these guys, especially older guys, are to the minutiae of Hitler's horrible machine.

[/i]

I think you need to lighten up a bit, it's virtually ancient history .... otherwise where do you draw the line - the British colonial forces in Africa/India, the 91th century American forces against the natives, Spanish slaughtering the central/south American natives, the Ottoman empire, the Crusades (either side if you're a tad religious).

Also, would you play the Japanese in the Pacific - they were as brutal to civilians and combatants as the Germans ?

If you're playing wargames for a moral factor then I think you're making a big mistake - the pros call them confict simulations and that's all you should be thinking.
It never (has never) even crosses my mind.

I think they're sort of making 2 different points at once. The first is his own distaste with playing the Wehrmacht. That, I understand though don't particularly empathize with [no offense to the original poster, but, hell, I like to play Aulic Council's Jack the Ripper--a game in which, unlike every other "Jack"-themed title, you actually choose to murder prostitutes as part of your activities--as Jack, so theme-squeamish, I'm not].

The other is the weird fixation that some grognards really have with the Nazi war machine. That's a pretty real element of the hobby; not a majority to be sure. But it is a subculture that is unbelievably off-putting [and why I stopped playing WWII miniatures very early on--my experience was that they're particularly over represented in that arena]. It's kind of like going to a Social Distortion show and having 200 nazi skins show up [which was a regular happening in Milwaukee when I was living there]. They're a huge pain in the ass, kind of creepy, and incredibly socially maladjusted. These sort of folks are beyond those who just argue about whether this sort of gun was available at x point in the war. Hell, Warhammer40k players can be that sort of anal and it's not like they have any historical material to fall back on. But, they spend their money, which is why every element of Barbarossa has been consim'd a thousand times over.

And, I've *never* seen that same sort of fixation with any of the other eras [or even for the other participants in WWII]. I'm not sure if I could stop laughing if some white guy sat across the table from me wearing a "Divine Wind" hachimaki and "Hirohito4Life" T-shirt to play a game of Fire in the Sky. But I've seen more Wehrmacht grey [and the more than occaisional SS black] in gaming rooms than I personally think is healthy. These games can turn into a weird sort of Nazi cosplay for some.