From: koubaje@warp6.cs.misu.NoDak.edu (Jeff Kouba) Subject: Re: GMT Games Reviews Wanted bennett,jay m (jmb@athens.cc.bellcore.com) wrote: : I am considering purchasing one of GMT's games. : I have never seen the components of any of their games : much less played them, but their titles look interesting. : I am particularly interested in: : Great Battles (?) of Alexander : Great Battles (?) of Ancient Rome : The Civil War Games (1862 or 1863) : I would especially like to know how well they play solitaire. If you are interested in games on ancient warfare, run, walk or crawl to your nearest game store to buy The Great Battles of Alexander and SPQR. You won't find any finer games on the era than these. I dare say it would be hard to find a more flexible tactical game system in any game of any era. When you take into account all the modules available for these games, there is no better way to study ancient warfare than with these games. The Great Battles of Alexander will be coming out in a 2nd edition, which as I understand it, means updated graphics and 1 more battle, that being the Battle of the Hydaspes. (This battle used to be in the module JUGGERNAUT. That module is out of print, and will now be part of the 2nd ed. game.) So, you might want to wait before this comes out before getting the Alexander game. This does relate to my one great beef with GMT Games, though. They are not very good at all at putting out products on their published dates. They are almost always way behind on most anything. For instance, at one point they were saying the GBoA 2nd ed. game would be out by this fall. After calling them, they now say they don't even have a printing date set. Same with the Alesia module for the Julius Caesar game. It was said to be out this summer. I called them yesterday, and it will be probably be months before this game is out. Regarding their C3I magazine, (which is an excellent magazine), they told me the 4th issue would be out at the end of August. Also yesterday, they now say it will be October. I can only guess at the current state of other entries in the Great Battles of History series. Oh well, back to the game system. To me, the great joy of playing this game comes from the many combinations of shock combat the game provides. Armies of the era had light infantry, medium infantry, heavy infantry, missle-throwing skirmishers, light and heavy cavalry, lancers, legions, elephants, chariots, etc... The game system is based around the central tenent that you would try to push your opponent back and try to disrupt his formation. Soldiers of the era usually lined up very close to each other, presenting a formidable wall of weapons and armor. It has hard to cut down soldiers in this formation, hence the desire to break them up into disorganized units. So, to do this, you had to have the right weapon sysems. For example, it was very hard for lightly armed troops to disrupt heavily armed troops, but easy for the reverse. It would be hard for cavalry charging headlong into a wall of spears to disrupt infantry, but easy if the cavalry was attacking their undefended rear. (It was easier for charging infantry, too!) The game system recreates this aspect of ancient battle. As commander, you are required to attack your opponent with the needed weapon system, while making sure your flanks and rear are defended. With all the different types of units I mentioned above, there are any number of possibilities for combat, making it a varied and always interesting game. You need to present a solid front to the enemy so they don't come pouring through gaps in your line, so you need to make sure you don't get overextended in spots. Once your flanks are laid bare, you're done for. Part of the enjoyment of these games comes from the graphics. From top to bottom, I have not seen any game (which uses counters and hex maps) with better graphics. The detail on the counters is incredible. Rodger MacGowan deserves many kudos. As another poster mentioned, there are down sides to the game, which I think arise from the necessity to create a playable system. Often, a side is at a disadvantage because they have poor leaders. The Persians in GBoA are a classic example. There, the worst Persian leaders have an Initiative of 2 or 3 (out of 10), whereas Alexander has 7. Not only can the Persians give just a few orders, they don't usually get Momentum (the opportunity to give more orders in the same turn). On the other hand, Alexander can give 7 orders and easily get momentum (by rolling his Initiative or less on a 10-sided dice). So, Alexander can give 21 orders to an opponent's 3, thereby just burying the enemy. I think the designers did this to give a sense of how and why certain leaders (Alexander, Scipio, Hannibal, etc...) are remembered to this day. The game recreates their genius and ability to quickly respond to challenges by giving them higher Initiatives, thus allowing them to outmaneuver the enemy before he can get going. True, a Persian leader can't send many units of cavalry into action, as perhaps they could historically, but for game purposes, the player can see why the better leader usually won. One small point that isn't historical but necessary for game purposes involves Cohesion hits. Each unit has a Troop Quality (TQ) rating. This is the most important rating in the game for combat units. These are numbers between 0 and 10 (the game is based on a 10-sided dice) with the lowest TQ being 3, and the highest being a 9. This rating reflects how effective a unit is in combat, and how able and willing they are to withstand combat. A lousy, rock bottom, conscript unit will have a TQ of 3 or 4, whereas a crack Roman legion or the best of Alexander's cavalry will have a TQ of 8 or so. In combat, units take what is called Cohesion hits. When a unit takes a total of Cohesion hits equal to its TQ, it routs. This means the unit can no longer participate in combat. Instead, it heads for its Retreat edge, and will leave the battlefield unless a leader rallies it. So, it doesn't take much to rout a lousy unit, but it takes a fair amount of damage to rout the best troops. Relating this to what I said about watching your flanks, combat damage is doubled for a unit being attacked through the rear or flanks! So, a crack unit might be routed in one combat phase if a enemy unit can get around behind them. But, to relate what the one ahistorical point about all this is, a unit also takes Cohesion hits when moving over rough terrain, such as rivers, woods, uphill, downhill, etc... This reflects the disruption in formation. What this means is that a unit can be miles (actually, yards) behind the front lines, with no enemy units around, and say this unit is walking uphill, or over rough terrain. Conceivably, the unit could take enough Cohesion hits to cause it to rout, sending it off the map, even if no enemy unit ever came near it! But again, this is something that arose out of game design purposes. From what I have said before, I think you can see that these games would be excellent for solitaire purposes. True, like most solitaire games, there are no surprises, because you know what each side will do. You are moving for both sides. But, the unique game system allows you to see how ancient warfare was conducted. You can move the pieces around and see the interplay between the various types of weapons systems. You can set up the battles and see what the ancient commanders were faced with, and why they made the decisions they did. You can see why these decisions were wrong or right. You can do all this because of the simple yet varied combat system. I don't think there will ever be any better games on this era for this scale. Hence, my wish that GMT would be faster at putting out their games so I could give them lots of my money for this great series of games! Jeff Kouba koubaje@warp6.cs.misu.nodak.edu From: jlw@redwing.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Joseph LaSalle White) Subject: Re: SPQR Questions In article koubaje@warp6.cs.misu.NoDak.edu (Jeff Kouba) writes: >Jeff Kouba (koubaje@warp6.cs.misu.NoDak.edu) wrote: > >: Hello. I have some question regarding some of the rules for SPQR that >: perhaps some you Scipios or Hannibals out there can help me with. > > If I may follow up on my own posting, I have another question I forgot >to include in the first posting. > > A). I don't quite understand how the Stacking Charts apply to Routed >units. Under the 'Basic' category in the Rout Movement Chart, it says >that each unit receives one Cohesion hit, and the stationary unit has >a TQ check. Does the Routed unit take a Cohesion hit? And if so, is it >then eliminated? If a Routed unit is forced to pass through another >Routed unit, do they both take a Cohesion hit, hence eliminating both >units? The routed unit is not eliminated as far as I can tell. Note that Romans don't suffer as much if they are the same color. I think the second routed unit just route moves, but I'd have to look carefully to verify this. If routed units are eliminated under both of these cases, then the game could get very ugly, very fast. Also, multiple lines wouldn't really make sense since the second line would kill the first and take hits in the process. Also the route movement chart could be made much simpler if that were the case. Routed units already die fast enough since making a momentum roll just after breaking the enemy line will allow you to attack and kill routed units that are just a hex or two away. I once killed 5 Carthiginian HC units in one turn with the Romans by having a Praefect Socorium make two rolls in a row. They were already engaged, so couldn't withdraw. It was lovely, especially since my oponent didn't have anything in the immediate area to throw at my exhausted Legionaries. > The rules say Routed units do not take movement Cohesion hits. Is that >referring only to Cohesion hits that come from crossing rough terrain, or >is it saying that Routed units do not take hits when moving through >other units? > Hmmm... I don't know if that's the rule to apply or not but it does make sense interpreted in the broadest way (ie no movement hits at all). > By the way, I found the answer to my second question regarding leaders >next to enemy units in the rules. It was in the Leaders and Combat >section. > >Jeff Kouba >koubaje@warp6.cs.misu.nodak.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ These are my opinions, not those of SLAC or DOE. Joe White From: koubaje@warp6.cs.misu.NoDak.edu (Jeff Kouba) Subject: Re: SPQR Questions Jeff Kouba (koubaje@warp6.cs.misu.NoDak.edu) wrote: : Hello. I have some question regarding some of the rules for SPQR that : perhaps some you Scipios or Hannibals out there can help me with. If I may follow up on my own posting, I have another question I forgot to include in the first posting. A). I don't quite understand how the Stacking Charts apply to Routed units. Under the 'Basic' category in the Rout Movement Chart, it says that each unit receives one Cohesion hit, and the stationary unit has a TQ check. Does the Routed unit take a Cohesion hit? And if so, is it then eliminated? If a Routed unit is forced to pass through another Routed unit, do they both take a Cohesion hit, hence eliminating both units? The rules say Routed units do not take movement Cohesion hits. Is that referring only to Cohesion hits that come from crossing rough terrain, or is it saying that Routed units do not take hits when moving through other units? By the way, I found the answer to my second question regarding leaders next to enemy units in the rules. It was in the Leaders and Combat section. Jeff Kouba koubaje@warp6.cs.misu.nodak.edu From: jlw@redwing.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Joseph LaSalle White) Subject: Re: SPQR Questions References: n article you write: > > Hello. I have some question regarding some of the rules for SPQR that >perhaps some you Scipios or Hannibals out there can help me with. > > 1). (This is more of a strategy question.) What is the best way to >use War Elephants? Should they be used to mop up, or to spearhead an >attack? I ask because last night a friend and I played SPQR for the >first time. (We've played Alexander quite a few times.) We played the >Bagradas Plain scenario. He had the Carthaginians, and I had the Romans. >On the first turn, he used a line command to send his entire line of >19 Elephant units crashing into my front line of Velites, initiating >Shock Attack. Within 2 or 3 turns, 18 of those 19 Elephant units had >been eliminated. The Elephants took Cohesion hits from my Reaction fire >with Javelins, as a result of failing Pre-Shock TQ checks, damage from the >result of combat, and also as a result of Rampaging Elephants charging >into friendly Elephant units. > The point is that Elephants only have a TQ of 5, so it doesn't take >much to Rout (and hence eliminate) them. We see now that charging the >Elephants right away like that was a mistake, but how should they be >used, then? > I have been working on this problem as well and I have come to a few conclusions. Elephants can't break a good quality infantry line especially if the infantry are missle armed. Romans are particularly tough since they have those hard hitting javelins and multiple lines. Elephants also don't fight mobile battles well since it costs 2mp to change facing one spine. Elephants do however defend very well. Look at the combat charts, nothing common gets a decent attack and most attacking types get hosed. They also have two reaction fires. And cavalry can't get near them, even the best cavalry will get destroyed with all the automatic hits and the inability to attack frontally. I think I have come up with three possible uses for elephants. (1) Against cavalry: Get the beasts on the flanks and stop all enemy cavalry activity. Attack with them and watch the horses run. If you rampage, you'll inflict more hits on his units than your own. (2) As a screen for the center: Push the elephants out in front of your first infantry line by several hexes (to minimize rampage damage) and deploy in every other hex (cuts down on multiple elephant rampages). This should disrupt the enemy's attacking line which you can then counter-attack and route. (3) In a dispersed attack: Use only part of your elephants to attack with at a time since size doesn't matter and they will rampage anyway. I'd say every other or every third elephant is about right. You'll have fewer routes caused by friendly elephants and the multiple waves will soften his line up more than one big attack. It is also a good idea to spend the orders clean up cohesion hits on your elephants since TQ=5 is low and missle attacks do double hits (ouch!). > 2). What happens when an enemy unit moves adjacent to a friendly >leader? Presumably, the leader can use Orderly Withdrawal in the movement >phase? But, what happens if an enemy unit advances after combat and then >finds itself adjacent to a friendly leader alone in a hex? I read the rules >to say that Orderly Withdrawal can only take place in the movement phase, >except for Cavalry getting out of the way of Rampaging Elephants. So what >happens to this leader that is next to an enemy unit? Can that enemy unit >attack the leader in any way? > The Leader withdraws by the rule at the end of section 4 of the second edition. This rule was not present in the first edition. It also seems that the defending leader has no choice in the matter even if stacked with a friendly unit. The only way to capture an enemy leader is to completely surround him. > 3). The rules say if after combat a unit is within one Cohesion hit of >routing, and it finds itself in an enemy ZOC, the friendly unit must take >a TQ check. Does that check take place before or after Advance after Combat? >In other words, if a friendly unit routs an enemy unit, and is within one >hit of routing, and is not next to an enemy, but then advances and is now >within an enemy ZOC, would the friendly unit have to take a TQ check? > The order of shock combat is strict. Look at the first part of that rules section and follow exactly. All of this is a little clearer in the 2nd edition, so if you don't have those rules, get them. GMT sells just the rules and charts for about $7.00 direct mail only, Its not in the stores. (The quick answer is that the collapse checks take place before any advance after combat but after all combat resolution.) > 4). The rules say a Rampaging Elephant must move directly away from >the unit that caused it to Rout on a roll of 7-9. What happens if >that roll of 7-9 came on, say, the 3rd or 4th roll, after the elephant >had wandered away from the unit that caused it to Rout? Would it still >move directly (in a straight line) away from that unit, or would it >move directly towards the Retreat Edge? If a 7-9 is rolled on a subsequent rampage roll, the elephant is eliminated without further rampaging. > > 5). Does anyone know when the 4th issue of GMT's C3i magazine will >be coming out? (Incidentally, if you love GMT games, I would highly >recommend getting a subscription to this magazine. It is to GMT games >what The General is to Avalon Hill games. It is extremely well done, >with playing and strategy tips, new scenarios and modules, interviews, >historical backgrounds, etc... It is a great gaming magazine.) > It should be out soon. At Orgins, the GMT guys said they had it finished but it hadn't been printed yet. They also said that they will be putting out an updated Alexander next summer with redone counters and the Hydaspes module included. On the list for the winter (hopefully), is Samurai (16th century Japan) which looks like it'll be a winner. For the fall, I think they will finish Alesia (lots of rules hacking here I bet since sieges are very different than field battles) which should be interesting. > Thank you for your help! > >Jeff Kouba >koubaje@warp6.cs.misu.nodak.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ These are my own opinions not those of SLAC or DOE. Joe White Stanford Linear Accelerator Center From: Ahill@HR.HOUSE.GOV (Allen Hill) Newsgroups: rec.games.board Subject: Re: GMT Games Reviews Wanted In article koubaje@warp6.cs.misu.NoDak.edu (Jeff Kouba) writes: > If you are interested in games on ancient warfare, run, walk or crawl >to your nearest game store to buy The Great Battles of Alexander and SPQR. ... > But, to relate what the one ahistorical point about all this is, a >unit also takes Cohesion hits when moving over rough terrain, such as >rivers, woods, uphill, downhill, etc... This reflects the disruption in >formation. What this means is that a unit can be miles (actually, yards) >behind the front lines, with no enemy units around, and say this unit >is walking uphill, or over rough terrain. Conceivably, the unit could take >enough Cohesion hits to cause it to rout, sending it off the map, even if >no enemy unit ever came near it! But again, this is something that arose >out of game design purposes. ... While that is conceivable, it is also easily avoided. Units can "restore" cohesion hits when a leader gives them orders (maybe also not when adjacent to the enemy), i.e., they can restore instead of moving. Thus they would be more susceptible to routing if they had just come through rough terrain and still had the cohesion hits, but if they are far from battle all they need is not to go too fast, and to have a leader reorganize them afterwards, before moving into battle. This seems very realistic to me. Apologies if I have misrepresented something, I have had limited experience playing SPQR. -- Allen ahill@hr.house.gov From: koubaje@warp6.cs.misu.NoDak.edu (Jeff Kouba) Subject: Re: GMT Games Reviews Wanted Allen Hill (Ahill@HR.HOUSE.GOV) wrote: : While that is conceivable, it is also easily avoided. Units can : "restore" cohesion hits when a leader gives them orders (maybe : also not when adjacent to the enemy), i.e., they can restore : instead of moving. Thus they would be more susceptible to routing : if they had just come through rough terrain and still had the : cohesion hits, but if they are far from battle all they need is : not to go too fast, and to have a leader reorganize them afterwards, : before moving into battle. This seems very realistic to me. I didn't mean to imply that it was likely that a unit would rout by just walking around in rough terrain far behind the lines. True, this will probably never happen. I was just pointing out an example of how the game system can allow for ahistorical events. In this case, a unit simply walking around, routing and leaving the battlefield being the same result as a unit crushed in face to face combat with a phalanx. You are correct in pointing out that leaders can reorganize units by ordering them to remove Cohesion hits. This is an important part of the game, and it's something I failed to mention. To do this takes 1 order, and the unit cannot be adjacent to an enemy unit, in an enemy zone of control, and I believe cannot be in rough terrain. If a unit does form up like that, the unit cannot move in that orders phase. So, the commander needs to decide what he wants to do that unit in that turn. Should he risk more combat damage or should he reorganize the unit, but thus preventing a chance to rout an enemy unit? Just another one of the tactical decisions that need to be made in this game! Jeff Kouba koubaje@warp6.cs.misu.nodak.edu From: mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) Newsgroups: rec.games.board Subject: Re: GMT Games Reviews Wanted (Long) In article 77f@newsbf01.news.aol.com, cthulhoid@aol.com (Cthulhoid) writes: >This is very interesting. Please go into more detail, Markus. OK, here it is. It's a bit long, unfortunately. (It also took some time to compose. Note to Jeff Kouba: In case you're wondering, I wrote that first paragraph *before* I read your followup question on the shock combat system. :-) Let me start out with what I liked. That, basically, is the combat system: cohesion hits, the attacker/defender superiority stuff, and also the idea of accumulating cohesion hits through movement). The first comment one usually reads is the "scissors-paper" view of ancients combat that the system represents, and the necessity to use combined arms correctly. I agree the system does a very good job at this. I'm also quite impressed by the orders of battle (the reason why I didn't sell my copy of GBoA). Btw, I have somewhat more experience with GBoA than SPQR, so my comments are mostly based on the former, but they still apply. I've played nothing in the series that came out after SPQR. Many of the scenarios have minor problems (such as the fact that at the Granicus scenario, the Persian rout edge is directly behind their line, so that if a unit routs, it's gone immediately, while the Macedonians have some time to catch theirs), but I'll concentrate on the faults we found with the system. The main annoyance, to me, was the movement system. The second was the rout/rally mechanism. All references to historical happenings in my elaborations include a huge IMHO. If one can convince me I was wrong and the historical battles did work this way, go ahead and restore my trust in the game. The movement system has three goals: interactivity, to show the shifting initiative in those battles, and allow players to grasp those fleeting opportunities that arise during battle, restrictions to movement, because coordination on the ancient battlefield was not too good, and bringing out the quality differences between leaders. Momentum and trumping are, to a degree, successful. However, the effectiveness of mechanisms that change movement order suffers if the scale isn't right. In West End's Tank Leader games (which have similar possibilities), "trumping" is OK, because longer weapons ranges and opportunity fire mean that it's not possible to provide completely unrealistic tricks through the resulting double movement rates. In GBoA/SPQR, a cavalry unit with perfect sight to all sides cannot react to meet a charge from head-on, because 8 movement points for cavalry means you can go from battleline to far behind the enemy lines in one turn - not much better than traditional move-fight. In fact, I've noticed a tendency of players to deploy cavalry in "fortress" patterns, to avoid its being taken in the flank. This is doable in the game, but appears ridiculous to me in historical terms. And momentum, in addition, means that a given unit can triple its speed in a turn, though why it's top speed should depend on the strategic ability of its general is not clear. OK, you say, that is supposed to represent reaction speed of the commanding general, not actual movement speed. But then why not simply provide for a true "interruption" mechanism instead of the trumping mechanism that allows changing the move/fight sequence only if the opponent "allows" it? Another argument could be made: That momentum actually represents not greater speed of the phasing player, but instead slower reactions of the non-phasing player, whose units and commanders can't react in time because they are dumb with surprise (like the Greek mercenaries at the Granicus and the Spartan Allies at Leuktra, where Epaminondas introduced the oblique phalanx). Not unreasonable to assume, Mark Herman has used such techniques before (in Pacific War). But then, the designer's notes should really acknowledge that shifting timescale. They don't. And anyway, the temporal distortion such a mechanism produces is OK in a game where you are keeping track of a half dozen task forces spread over a huge map. Not in a game where you have a hundred or so units compressed in a narrow space. And in any case, the surprise at Leuktra or Granicus was due to the completely unexpected situation facing these units, not the fact that their commanders could not order more than three to move at one time. Next, "orders" (including the # of orders meaning of the initiative rating). Worst aspect: A moving unit that does not get a new order the next turn stops moving. Good example: At Issus, the attempt to produce a cavalry charge with the right Persian wing has the cavalry leapfrogging in successive waves across the Pinarus because only five can be moved in a turn (well, more in theory, but Nabarzanes then needs momentum without being trumped by Alexander - not the most common turn of events). You need half an hour to an hour in game time to get all that cavalry moving. Now, this is weird already. But on the other hand, you can get them moving quite well by having Thymondas (the Greek hoplite commander!) and Darius visit Nabarzanes on the right wing to give him a hand in sorting out his troops. This is positively bizarre. By the way, the left wing at Gaugamela has the same problem. It's not that the Persian cavalry at Gaugamela did not get to attack in time - they did, but the attack was held off. Note that this has nothing to do with "slavish attention to absolute accuracy" - instead it's fundamental flaw in the way the battle develops, and what you spend your time concentrating on to be successful in play. Tricksing with your spare command allowances to get your charge across is a classic case of fighting the system, not the battle. Last, individual unit control. I've already talked about the problem that in cavalry battles, whichever unit happens to move first once they get in range (eight hexes or more if you get momentum) will take the enemy in the flank, by moving around him. You get elaborate positioning of units to prevent/allow a maximum number of flank attacks, moving skirmishers around to capture defending units in ZOCs. Was this how those battles worked? Not to my knowledge. I would liken this aspect to Wooden Ships and Iron Men. The latter is an incredible lot of fun (when I entered the hobby, I didn't play anything else for years). It has a quite successful combat system, and unless one used house rules or a large number of players, can lead to quite ahistorical courses of battle, because there are no realistic restrictions in terms of command control. Nothing keeps you from executing superbly timed complex maneuvers that would have been completely impossible for an admiral of the era to orchestrate, quite apart from the fact that the support of his captains decided the success of his plans. On both British and French side, the decisiveness of battles hinged on the question if individual captains or squadron leaders would follow the lead of their superiors or not - due to lack of initiative, aggressiveness, or just plain ignorance of what was wanted of them. The combat system of GBoA/SPQR is great. The Command/Movement system has a number of awkward abstractions that give battles a stilted, unreal feel and means that the way in which engagements come about is not realistic even if the net effect is the same. OK. Routing/rallying. The effect of leaders with regard to this is the ability to remove cohesion hits away from the furor of battle, somewhat reducing the danger of routing (not too much, since a given column of the combat table usually will have only small differences between rolls of 0 and 9), and rallying troops *after* they've routed. The second is underrepresented, since the main activity of leaders at the time actually was keeping morale high *during* combat, which is why they usually led from the front (somewhat different for Roman times). Basically, it raised the troops' morale and being under the eye of their commander may also have made them less likely to flinch from entering the thick of battle. Once they *did* rout, and all the sources I've seen agree on this, the first thing they did was to throw away their weapons and shields to run faster, from which point they were worthless in terms of continuing the battle. Instead, here we have them running away at top speed, being intercepted by some leader to be moved at top speed back to the battle as soon as possible. Instead of forming a truly hardened point, units close to leaders are used in a kind of rubber-band process, to be slung repeatedly at the enemy line. Now, granted that you will lose a percentage due to failed rally rolls, but the weird part is that especially Alexander, who had virtually no routs/rallies in his battles, is the most adept at this due to his high initiative. Command range plays a role in rallying too - Alexander can rally his troops by shouting at them at the range of half a mile, apparently. Some argue that's supposed to represent junior officers, but did those subordinate to Alexander automatically inherit his effectiveness as regards morale when 500 meters away? Hardly. But this, I concede, is a minor point. Summary: Is there another game out there that addresses all these issues adequately? Not to my knowledge. Nor do I claim it would be anywhere like easy to design such a game - I am quite convinced of Mark Herman's ability as a designer, having probably spent more time on his games than any other single designer's over the last five years or so. But that no other game manages it doesn't mean that this series addresses them adequately by default. Ancient battles are very hard to simulate at a detailed level due to all the soft factors involved. The GMT games produce historical outcomes, but that I think one can get with more abstract games as well, without the distracting, inconsistent details. If units were moved in larger "lumps" and with less elaborate maneuvering historically, then larger scale and smaller movement allowances might produce quite good results. (Note to Jeff Kouba: this would in fact *increase* playability because the number of units is reduced.) Anyway. This is my "not universally positive" view on the GBOH series as a vehicle for recreating historical battles. Your mileage may vary. Btw, as I'll be on holiday the next week, please send responses, if any, also by email, since they'll probably be expired when I get back. --- Markus Stumptner mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at Technische Universitaet Wien vexpert!mst@relay.eu.net Paniglg. 16, A-1040 Vienna, Austria ...mcsun!vexpert!mst You may just have missed your last chance for incremental garbage collection.