From: Roberto Chiavini Subject: Three reviews Paths of Glory (GMT) It is almost vain to try to speak of one of the most talked game designs of the last few years, recently reprinted in an updated version by GMT: Ted Raicer's point-to-point map and cards driven simulation of WWI at the strategic level is probably one of the better games that has been published by GMT in all of its career as a wargaming publisher, and this is certainly saying enough, if you take a look at the excellent catalogue and past pedigree of this still young and fresh gaming imprint. So, I don't bore you with the usual, long and detailed review of components, overall quality and sequence of play: I'll try to focus on my feeling toward this game, explaining a few rules in the meantime. Having heard so many people praising this game, so many different wargamers in fact, from the beer and pretzels crowd to the real grognards, who normally play the Europa series, WiF or ASL, I have approached this game with curiosity, but with the clear intention to evaluating it without preconcepted visions. I've read the rules, tried the game for a few hours, enjoying it very much (even if probably making some terrible strategical mistakes, as the Allies won my solitaire game at the end of turn 6, having reduced below 0 the VPs of the Central Powers), and now I'm ready to discuss it with you. The game is definitely very fun, even solitaire (a really strange fact, as the game is card driven, as most of you know), and this is not in discussion, I'm sure. Is it historical? I cannot be a good judge, as I'm not an expert of the period, but certainly the different cards, the core of the system, and several events during the game (like the Fall of the Zar, for example) testify that the designer has put a great effort in trying to accomodate the more historical events and facts that could be possible in such a courageous design. The card system works perfectly, forcing the players to be at the same time good strategists and better tacticians, if possible, having to take in account all the apparently minimal things that are important for the conduct of a war, from the armies in the field, to the politics, the diplomacy, the home front and all the other incorporeal aspects of any conflict. Raicer, taking the system from Herman's For the People and its immediate precursors, has created his masterpiece (I've still to try Command's Great War system, father of the GMT's game, according to the words of Mr.Raicer), a tense, almost perfect gaming experience, definitely worth every hour spent in it, playing it, trying to master its difficult strategies. Of course, in my limited experience, I've had a few negative remarks to make, too. For example, I think that the combat system is only so so; it should be better: in particular, I don't like both CRT's and the choice to give losses based on comparing the Loss number obtained with the CRT with the Loss factor of the single units. Even if this designing decision could be explained for historical reasons (in combat, it's not easy to eliminate more than one step from a stack containing army units, but when you reach corps, you normally eliminate them very easily), I don't like it particularly during my gaming sessions. Anyway, it's more a personal taste than a real critic. For the rest, the game is brilliant, absorbing, perhaps the game of your life. I rate this game 8 1/2 in a 1-10 scale