Great video and great to see you back! Super cool to see you rank commands and colors ancients A tier. I love that game as well, and sometimes I beat myself up about not enjoying more complicated games, but some of them are just too much for me.
Thanks for the video mate. I've played and enjoyed the early GBACW (SPI) games, but just reading the updated GMT GBACW rules was a brain burner for me. However, I'll have to give Imperial Struggle a second look.
Agree mostly with your choices. Would rate EotS a little higher and PoG a little lower. Atlantic Chase however fell really flat for me and I would put that a lot lower. Would rate Conquest of Paradise much higher, dont know, we always had fun with it, really kind of like a space game.
Interesting thoughts. If you enjoy Nevsky I would encourage a look at the other games. The maps, capabilities and Lords are all different. You then have additional mechanics such as Taifas/Jihad (Almoravid), Treachery (Inferno) and area control/influence (Plantagenet). Each historical context is also fascinating. For me this makes them all quite different experiences.
I only have about 50 GMT games, but fortunately none of them are in your C and D group (except Holland 44, which I like despite the blowing bridges issue).
Nice video. Overall, I really enjoyed your comments. One issue I had was that you said in your intro you were judging the games based on what they were designed to be...then proceeded to put EOTS in B tier because you said it was hard to learn solitaire and you didn't have an opponent. How is that the game's fault? It was never designed to be a solitaire game.
Triumph and Tragedy is your biggest miss! Games with no war are rare. It requires the German player to believe he can win an industrial victory (or maybe atomic) forcing the Russians or the West to declare war. Just P500 Ardennes '44! Pax Romana is indeed a great game from Berg. You gotta play with all of this optional historical rules, even good with 2 players, and way better the the simpler followup Genesis.