From: Kevin Duke Subject: Brief Review-- Paths of Glory Three people have made the same comment after spending about 30 minutes looking at the graphics and being briefed on the rules for GMT's latest release, "Paths of Glory." Each looked with a smile and said, "This is what I expected from "For the People." To be brief, this game is a winner. While several of the group held back at the notion of a "strategic WWI" game (back closets are filled with failed attempts at the same subject), the more we look and the more we play, the more we like it. Again, to be brief, "Paths" is built around a card play "engine" such as that which began with "We the People" and has evolved through Hannibal, Successors, and the aforementioned FtP. However, unlike the other games, in Paths, EACH player has his own deck. Further, each player's deck actually consists of 3 smaller decks-- some 14 starting cards for early war events ("Mobilization"), then 22 more for developments as the war progressed ("Limited War") and then 20 or so more for the final episodes ("Total War"). Players access the more advanced decks as the war progresses (and can greatly influence the pace at which this occurs). Further, EACH card has 4 possible uses-- * it can be used for "operations" (mostly making a stack move OR attack-- but not both) * "Strategic Redeployment" allows you to move units considerable distances, or to move to and from the reserve box. * Replacement points-- which can be used to flip over depleted units, or rebuild destroyed ones. * an "event," which can be a wide variety of historical happenings, reinforcing armies, special temporary circumstances, victory points, and even some "tactical" advantages for battles. Each turn has 6 phases, most of which will involve a single card play. Each turn, a player has 7 cards, so-- unless you burn several with tactical combat, you won't "run out of cards." And even if you do, there are a couple actions you can take which do not require a card. Players constantly wrestle with how best to play and use their cards. Many of the events are things you REALLY want to have happen, but most events cause the card to "go away" after the event is played. That same card could be used again and again of it is only used for one of the other 3 choices (and of course, the most desireable "events" also happen to be cards with high values in the other areas). No two games will be alike. There are other very good "wrinkles" thrown in. Most turns will involve at least one "mandatory offensive," which-- for the French, British, and Germans means attacking something on the Western Front where you might not really want to...a drain of troop strength and operations points that gives players yet another choice-- build at least part their turn around the offensive (involving several cards), or make the offensive a true "throw away" or even just lump it and give up a victory point. The choices are there and the decisions are pleasantly difficult. Yes, the Near East is present, so you can have Lawrence and the Arab Northern Army do something-- in fact, the difficulties of terrain and logistics for the NE map area require a number of alterations to the rules...but they are justified and understandable (if, unfortunately, scattered around the rule book within each respective section, versus being concentrated in a single area. The Allies can take some adventures in the Med in several different ways, and within the counsel of a player's own mind you can almost hear the generals arguing about what choices will really "win the war" and which are wastes of time. Graphically, the game is solid. The map is area movement, mostly with counter-sized boxes (and the spot names OUTSIDE the box, where they can be read with counters in place--thank you very much. Map and counters have just the right amount of information and enough distinction in color and numbers to be easy to read. The only graphic flaw I'd call GMT on is their continued habit of back printing incongruous things together. While the game MIGHT need more "destroyed fort" markers, having some extras on the back of information counters used as reminders of key events being played is a bad idea. (The game doesn't really need more destroyed fort markers anyway-- but could have used some more 'control' markers. These are easy enough to come by from old games (it's Allied Roundels and German Crosses)-- or to make extra yourself.) This may sound like a petty complaint--okay, maybe it is. But the graphics are so danged "intelligent" in every other way that you hate to see this mistake continue. (Yes, there are several errors on the map, but nothing that really messes up play.) On the whole, the rules are well laid out. Some errata and clarifications have already been posted, but they are more the latter and not the former...and some of the clarifications are things that most gamers would figure out anyway. Casualties from combat are unique-- both sides count their strengths and roll on a table, achieving a "loss number,"which their opponent is compelled to meet as much as possible WITHOUT EXCEEDING IT. This sometimes means you get to ignore some hits and sometimes means you have to break units down in ways you really hate to do. (Armies are two step, then replaced by two-step corps...it's possible to have a result that makes you go through all 4 of those steps in one turn.) On first read, I thought the casualty system was cumbersome, but in practice it worked out much more quickly than I feared. I know it's a good selling point for games to be good solo, since not everyone can get opponents when they want them, but I don't really agree with the designer's (and GMT's) assertion that the game works fine as a solo one. The surprises that another player can throw at you, and the lack of knowledge of what card will be played next, are a big part of the enjoyment of the game. It's not the same as playing both sides of a poker game, but it's a lot less interesting. (It would be a good technique for running through the mechanics and ironing out some understandings.) A complete, campaign game will be more than most working class adults could manage in an evening (a long weekend is more like it). The rules include two much shorter versions-- one a three turn starter set (good way to learn the mechanics) and the other a 10 turn game that covers the first two years of the war. I'd recommend folks use the shortest one first-- learn the subtleties of the system and some important things about set ups and opening strategies. The 10 turn game might be done in a long evening, if you start early and don't have many questions. Two evenings will certainly cover that one, and I'd say play it also before jumping on the Campaign Game. There aren't really very many things that players will do differently (Playing without the US or the likelihood of Russia dropping out are two that come to mind, but aside from those...) and you'll get a chance to learn, enjoy, sweat making choices, and get comfortable with all the ideas before committing to really FINISH a campaign game. As I said at the beginning, Paths of Glory is winner.