That is why it jumps the shark for me, as it is marketed as "historical".....I bothered to put forth my comments as an effort to understand the inconsistencies of the game play to history, as initiated by other players observations.
And here's why BGHW is not a jumping the shark: because it opens a niche for the hobby historical gamer. When it comes to historicals, there's really two types of people:
1) The gamers who are meticulous about making sure that the historical game is a near-perfect simulation of real world events. They laboriously recreate every little detail and often force the game to go as the historical simulation, and thus lock the game into a pre-determined outcome.
2) The people who don't play historicals because of group #1.
BGHW is for the second group who have a looser requirement for 100% accuracy. They want the feel of a historical game, without getting bogged down in the minutae. To group #1, accuracy = fun. That's fine, but I think there's a missing game for the #2 crowd who want something that is more "let's get together over some beers, push some cards, and roll some dice."
I think BGHW is for that second crowd. Is it a 100% recreation of every aspect of a historical army? No. But it was never intended to be. And anyone who thought it was, simply has misplaced expectations. Rome & Carthage are not historical recreations of the two armies. They are the Roman as Carthaginian armies of the Punic Wars as presented by the Battleground rules set.
Obviously group #1 will think it "sucks" because of it is not DBA. Again, that's fine. Go play DBA. But its disingenuous, at best, to bash on a system for failing to do something it was never eve attempting to do.
All that being said, there were attempts to represent the Roman & Carthaginian army as accurately as possible. In fact the skirmishers came about as part of that compromise that is marrying the fantasy system to a real world historical system. And I for one say that Chad & Co, did a good job.
More directly, I'm willing to throw my credentials out there. I was brought onboard by Chad as a playtester, but really I was essentially a historical consultant. I pointed out a few things and then he delved into the field of work. So after a few conversations, I never saw the Punic Wars until they were in print. And when I did, I was impressed at the verisimilitude of the sets. I felt they did capture the Punic Wars fairly well.
Beyond that, I showed this set to some of my old professors, essentially explaining the game to them. By and large they were impressed, with one talking about picking up the cards as a teaching aide. I also had the chance to play a few games with a friend who has a Classics degree, with an emphasis on ancient military history. He was impressed by the set, both as a scholar and a gamer.
Now Ajax, you disagree, based on historical accuracy. Which is fine, you are entitled to your opinion. But with all due respect, I find your interpretations of history . . . questionable. You can say that you have "the facts" but in truth you have your interpretation of the texts that have survived and been translated (unless you can read Attic Greek and Classical Latin). So in the end, it is really just your interpretation vs the interpretations of professional scholars. I've already stated who I think is superior.
Now in the end, Ajax, you may find BGHW "sucks." Again, that's cool. Smart people can have different opinions. I feel that you are selling BGHW short and feel it should be defended for what it is. And for what it tries to do, I think it succeeds admirably. I pitch the game to people as a way to get all the fun of DBA without any of the hassle.
Okay I've said my piece. Feel free to respond, but please know I won't. We'll just end up saying the same things at each other, neither changing the other's mind. And that leads to anger, which leads to flame wars, which leads to the dark side. I just felt that your assessment was unfairly harsh.
