Game: Manifest Destiny

Thread: Re: Canada Questions

AllenDoum — 2008-10-04T22:25:44+00:00

Mingler1 wrote:
I have two questions about Canada.

In the Errata, it states that the United States means the 50 states that constitute the US today. Does that hold true for Canada as well?

The reason I ask, is because in the 3 and 4 Player games, no movement or expansion is allowed into Canada. Is that modern Canada, or as its territory is depicted in the game (British Columbia and Alberta are part of the Northwest)? If the former, does that mean that we can only expand into Alaska by way of Steamship, Airplane or E-Commerce?

Thanks for any input.
It refers only to the tan area labeled Canada. The definition of the United States you mention refers to events that mention the term.

Thread: Canada Questions

Mingler1 — 2008-10-04T22:08:09+00:00

I have two questions about Canada.

In the Errata, it states that the United States means the 50 states that constitute the US today. Does that hold true for Canada as well?

The reason I ask, is because in the 3 and 4 Player games, no movement or expansion is allowed into Canada. Is that modern Canada, or as its territory is depicted in the game (British Columbia and Alberta are part of the Northwest)? If the former, does that mean that we can only expand into Alaska by way of Steamship, Airplane or E-Commerce?

Thanks for any input.

Image

Legomancer — 2008-09-02T02:46:15+00:00

Typo on first edition map. This is clearly not a chihuahua.

Thread: Re: Fractions and Licensing Fees

coolpapa — 2008-06-17T05:29:45+00:00

I see. I hadn't looked through the deck that closely yet. Cute.

Thread: Re: Fractions and Licensing Fees

AllenDoum — 2008-06-17T04:05:02+00:00

coolpapa wrote:
This has been asked and not quite answered in another thread. Which way do you round fractions when paying a licensing fee? Normally you round to the player's detriment, but this involves a payment from one player to another. So who gets the shaft (all of $5)? The player who played the card, or the player who's borrowing it?
This would only be an issue with Lewis and Clark, as they are the only Leader card with an odd discount.

I hate to spoil the joke, but if you still haven't figured out why this is not a problem ...

[o]The reason this is not a problem is that L & C give a discount on Westward Ho! A player buying Westward Ho! cannot have Unity, and therefore cannot use licensing.
[/o]

Thread: Fractions and Licensing Fees

coolpapa — 2008-06-16T04:51:20+00:00

This has been asked and not quite answered in another thread. Which way do you round fractions when paying a licensing fee? Normally you round to the player's detriment, but this involves a payment from one player to another. So who gets the shaft (all of $5)? The player who played the card, or the player who's borrowing it?

Thread: Re: Steamship and Airplanes Progression Attributes

AllenDoum — 2008-05-21T01:06:35+00:00

Airplanes also give you access to those areas, but by then, you already have steamships.

It could still be a problem if you don't have a coastal area on the right coast.

Thread: Steamship and Airplanes Progression Attributes

Private Adamson — 2008-05-20T22:43:49+00:00

In the rule book, it states. Eastern South America and Western South America can only be reached via steamships. Also Alaska can only be reached by steamship or ferry. On the Airplanes Progess map, Deed,and Progressions 2.0 in the reference book it states. Place control Tokens anywhere in Americas. This is a contradiction. Which one should I go with?

Thread: Re: Tolerance and Wireless

AllenDoum — 2008-04-27T19:46:14+00:00

Philip Thomas wrote:
er, no, units purchased with cash are a seperate issue. Even with the FAQ clarification, there is nothing to say you count wireless units towards the limit- they have a limit of their own, that is all. Otherwise Wireless is really really bad.
Sorry Philip, but the FAQ says otherwise. I don't like it either, as it makes Wireless even less useful. But many game only allow one turn at Phase III anyway.

Thread: Re: What happens to cities vacated due to Wireless?

AllenDoum — 2008-04-27T19:24:59+00:00

ksudy wrote:
Abandoned cities are removed.
Where is that stated?

Thread: Re: Tolerance and Wireless

Philip Thomas — 2008-04-27T19:04:41+00:00

er, no, units purchased with cash are a seperate issue. Even with the FAQ clarification, there is nothing to say you count wireless units towards the limit- they have a limit of their own, that is all. Otherwise Wireless is really really bad.

edit: ah, it would help if I read the FAQ clarification first!

Thread: Re: Sudden player elimination?

ksudy — 2008-04-27T18:57:50+00:00

Yes, the rule of thumb is that you can expand *as if* you still control your capital.

Thread: Re: Tolerance and Wireless

ksudy — 2008-04-27T18:56:09+00:00

Tolerance increases the turn limit, including its application to Wireless. The limit is releveant even if you are not going first in the turn order, because it restricts the number of additional tokens you can purchase with cash.

Thread: Re: What happens to cities vacated due to Wireless?

ksudy — 2008-04-27T18:53:32+00:00

Abandoned cities are removed.

Thread: Re: What happens to cities vacated due to Wireless?

AllenDoum — 2008-04-24T22:52:19+00:00

I have always played that they would remain empty to be unclaimed.

Cities are only removed by Depression.

Thread: What happens to cities vacated due to Wireless?

Spielfreak — 2008-04-24T03:30:43+00:00

Wireless allows a player to remove up to 5 tokens from the board which can then be played anywhere during Expansion (or spent during Investment). What happens if a token is removed from an area that contains a city? Does the city remain, able to be claimed by the next faction that moves into it? Or does the city disappear as soon as the control marker is removed?

TIA

Thread: Re: Tolerance and Wireless

AllenDoum — 2008-04-20T22:28:55+00:00

Philip Thomas wrote:
Maybe I'm being dumb, but I don't think the Turn Order restriction applies to Wireless at all. Its an additional bonus move on top of your tokens for the turn.
I was suprised by this in the FAQ. However, the restriction will only have effect if the player is playing first in the turn, and, of course, purchased Wireless.

Wireless is the least purchased progression in our group.

As to the OP's question, this is also open on the CSW forum for the game.

I would rule that the maximum is increased. The rules, which contain the most complete description of effects, state the Tolerance increases a Players maximum. Rule 9.11

Thread: Re: Tolerance and Wireless

Spielfreak — 2008-04-20T16:55:48+00:00

The FAQ addresses this issue:

Q: How does Wireless (Rule 10.19) work? What does the restriction “subject to the turn over maximum mean”?

A: When you buy Wireless, you may take up to 5 tokens off territories on the board at that time (i.e., during the Investment Phase), subject to the turn order maximum, and you may use them during either the Investment or Expansion Phase. Turn order maximum refers to the maximum number of tokens that can be bought based on turn movement order. Rule 9.1. If you can only buy 3 tokens, you can only take up to 3 tokens off the board; if you take 1 off the board, you can buy 2 more; if you take 2 off the board, you can buy 1 more. If you can buy 5-7-9 tokens, you can take up to 5 tokens off the board and purchase others so long as the total removed and bought is 5-7-9 or less. If you can buy more tokens than you remove from the board, keep the tokens removed by Wireless segregated from the tokens purchased. If you use tokens in the Investment Phase, use the purchased tokens (since the Wireless tokens can be used to expand anywhere but the extra purchased ones are subject to the player's normal expansion restrictions).

My question centers on whether Tolerance increases the Turn Order Maximum.

Thread: Re: Tolerance and Wireless

Philip Thomas — 2008-04-20T16:33:11+00:00

Maybe I'm being dumb, but I don't think the Turn Order restriction applies to Wireless at all. Its an additional bonus move on top of your tokens for the turn.

Thread: Tolerance and Wireless

Spielfreak — 2008-04-20T16:20:14+00:00

Does Tolerance have any bearing on how many tokens may be removed via Wireless?

If a player is first in turn order, s/he is under the Turn Order Maximimum restriction of 3 tokens. But if Tolerance is owned, then s/he can purchase up to two tokens more than the maximum (up to 5). Since Wireless is governed by Turn Order Maximum, could a player going first who owns Tolerance remove 5 tokens when buying Wireless, or is s/he restricted to removing 3 tokens?

I think Turn Order Maximum is a hard number that is unaffected by any progressions, and is set when turn order is selected. So in the case of going first, the player is restricted to removing a maximum of 3 tokens, regardless of whether Tolerance is owned. But I am not 100% of this reasoning, and seek confirmation one way or the other.

TIA

Thread: Re: Sudden player elimination?

TrimChris — 2008-04-01T19:11:31+00:00

I believe you can also always attack territories adjacent to your starting capital.

Thread: Re: Sudden player elimination?

marticabre — 2008-03-30T21:57:42+00:00

The rules are really simple, and the rulebook is fine AFTER you have played a game. I had some trouble understanding some concepts before my first play, but then it all went smooth.

Thread: Re: Sudden player elimination?

nicktaruffi — 2008-03-28T11:45:40+00:00

Well we were in a hurry and the guy owning the game didn't bother to read the rules carefully, so we had to do it on spot before starting!
Hate to do this!
Now it's ME who has to do the ruling FAQ and so on...
Life is unfair, like The Great Dalmuti says.

Thread: Re: Sudden player elimination?

Great Dane — 2008-03-28T11:41:46+00:00

nicktaruffi wrote:
Ok, thanks guys!
Is just me or the rulebook is horrible?
I mean, I played ASL, UP FRONT and Republic of Rome so I'm not frightened by Avalonesque!

It must be you - 'cause the rules are far easier to understand than those for UP and RoR.

Thread: Re: Sudden player elimination?

nicktaruffi — 2008-03-27T18:03:39+00:00

Ok, thanks guys!
Is just me or the rulebook is horrible?
I mean, I played ASL, UP FRONT and Republic of Rome so I'm not frightened by Avalonesque!

Thread: Re: Sudden player elimination?

Philip Thomas — 2008-03-27T17:53:31+00:00

You can always attack in your starting location. You get an extra die when attacking (and indeed, when defending) there. Your income can't go below 20, so you will always be able to buy 1 cube (indeed, more than one). All your breakthroughs etc still work for you.

Thread: Re: Sudden player elimination?

Kwebec — 2008-03-27T17:41:03+00:00

He comes back to his starting location having to fight his position back.it's in the rules somewhere, i don't have them handy

Thread: Sudden player elimination?

nicktaruffi — 2008-03-27T16:39:10+00:00

What happens if a player is ousted from every single territory on the map?
Game over?
Can he respawn?
Whereabout?

Thread: Re: Looking for Cyberboard Game

punkzter — 2008-03-17T23:02:39+00:00

Sweet...well, now we just need 1 person more to show Nate and myself the game!!

Thread: Re: Looking for Cyberboard Game

zefquaavius — 2008-03-17T15:30:20+00:00

...and me?

Thread: Looking for Cyberboard Game

punkzter — 2008-03-16T22:55:05+00:00

Hi,

I have never played Manifest Destiny, but I have familiarized myself with the rules. I just downloaded Cyberboard (I have not used this program yet) but I would like to start up a PBEM game of Manifest Destiny. Would anyone be willing to take the time to show me the ropes and to play a game of Manifest Destiny?

Thanks,
Brad Keen

Thread: Re: Expansion Card Question

Philip Thomas — 2008-03-11T16:34:03+00:00

There is also Remember the Alamo which allows one player (the person playing the card) to move to Texas and the three Mexican provinces adjacent to Texas. And Oregon Trail which allows a move to Oregon.

Thread: Re: Expansion Card Question

punkzter — 2008-03-11T16:02:59+00:00

Thanks!

Thread: Re: Expansion Card Question

Great Dane — 2008-03-11T15:58:18+00:00

Correct. Otherwise the card(s) wouldn't actually DO anything.

If I recall correctly there are two such cards - one that allows all players to move to California, and one that allows the player to move to Alaska.

And yes, if you already have an established presence in an adjacent area (or have Telegraph, Railroads, Airplanes etc.) you don't need that particular event.

Thread: Expansion Card Question

punkzter — 2008-03-11T11:34:59+00:00

I have a quick question about expansion in Manifest Destiny. When you play a card that, if you have Westward Ho!, allows you to move into Texas for example, does that waive the standard expansion requirement that you must be adjacent to that territory to expand into it? Otherwise, IF you were adjacent, AND you had Westward Ho!, you could just simply expand into it without the card, correct?

Thread: Re: User Review

m_r_tyler — 2008-02-26T20:33:22+00:00

Yes, I realize this review is almost 3 years old, but I had to respond anyway.

jjcomet wrote:
Despite being a sucker for civilization-building type games, my first playing of Manifest Destiny left me flat. The game was pegged on a theme of building a commercial empire in North America, but I had absolutely no sense of doing that as I played. The disconnect between theme and gameplay would not have been as disappointing if the gameplay itself had been better. ... The board play was so divorced from the theme that it significantly undermined my enjoyment of the game.
Seems as though Manifest Destiny immediately appeals to fans of Age of Renaissance and perhaps not so much to true wargamers for whom historical accuracy matters a great deal. I enjoy a well integrated theme as much as the next person, but as any Eurogamer knows, theme can be almost anything if the game system is sound.

The problem here seems to be unmet expectations. Someone expecting a card-driven game in the same vein as other GMT wargames will likely be disappointed. But someone looking for Age of Renaissance Lite will be satisfied.

jjcomet wrote:
The game ends on the turn in which one player reaches 30 VPs. The turn is played to conclusion and the player with the most VPs at the end of the turn wins.
I think you mean phase instead of turn.

Thread: Re: Yankee vs. Dixie!

toguopp — 2008-02-22T16:03:28+00:00

Thank you very much for your report. Good to know that, with skillful play, one can win even if one were to lead during most of the game. There was a perceived criticism of the game that it was too easy to bash on the leader.

Thread: Re: 2-Player?

gte910h — 2008-01-12T20:20:32+00:00

I could see the "each player plays 2 colors, lowest color of a player is his score" would possibly work.

It works great for El Grande.

Image

Rokkr — 2007-11-13T21:53:23+00:00

game in progress at Euroquest V

Image

klellingson — 2007-09-12T03:29:58+00:00

A game in progress as part of the WCBC at ConQuest SF 2007

Thread: Re: Cyberboard for Manifest Destiny?

Sancherib — 2007-03-23T22:21:27+00:00

I'm not the buddy mentioned earlier, but in the mean time I made a Gamebox myself, wich you will find in the files section

Thread: Re: President and World War

TrimChris — 2007-03-06T16:11:09+00:00

In the 2007 Prezcon final, it was ruled that President did not cancel the entire World War, but instead just protected the one player from the negative effects.

Thread: Cyberboard Gameboy for Manifest Destiny posted

Sancherib — 2007-02-06T13:54:56+00:00

Hi,

well, it's been a lot of work, but thankfully I had an exam, so I had plenty of energy to do anything but studying . So now you can find my gambox for Manifest DEstiny in the files section. Have fun!
Please send me your comments/corrections.

Pablo
P.S: and... start a game!!! (no need of referee with the last version of Cyberboard!).

Thread: Yankee vs. Dixie!

Freitag — 2006-12-07T08:02:57+00:00

We played a 3 player game, I was the Northern U.S. player, with the others playing Virginia and Louisiana, with Mexico and Canada off limits, as per the normal rules. The opening was fairly standard, with all players rushing for the west, and thankfully for the game, the Southern players did not start fighting over the South (With both sides getting an home ground advantage, it ends up draining them of a lot of power for little gain.)

The early game was a fine dance of me trying to not get hammered while saving all the money I could. With other players usually going first, I tried to grab one turn advantages over them by buying a tech they hadn't bought. The big early grabs for me were Steamships and Tolerance, both offering me a chance to get more markets, and in places my opponents could not reach yet. I also pulled off getting the Roads breakthrough, giving me another free market token every turn. The others in turn tried to grow outward, with one trying to lay me out with the World War event. I dodged it with a Presidental Veto though, and gained an early lead in income.

In Era 2 our different tactics began to show. I siezed and held California against all comers for 2 turns, and used the steamships to reach South America. The Western US would slowly fall to the Southern players, but I was pulling ahead on the Resource cards. I grabbed the Electricity Breakthrough to get me more cities, and then focused on profits. Louisiana nailed a card Virginia played, and suddenly their peace treaty was over. It was only one turn before they returned to their senses, but it was brutal. A triple whammy, Abolitionists, Civil Disobedience, and Civil War, all crushing the South. The southern players were now almost 40 cash behind in income, and while they bought Unity to work together for Breakthroughs, I bought Computers to go for massive profits.

The 3rd Era was short, with the southern players knowing I was closing on Victory. The Events were aimed a hurting me big, and it slowed me down. All attacked were focused on my cities, and I started losing one or two a turn, even in my home areas. But by buying Aircraft as soon as possible, I gained markets in Asia to replace Pennsylvania, the Middle East to replace Ohio, and Europe to replace California. The final push was close, with everyone knowing I had the money to buy the last victory points off techs, but even losing most cities on the last turn, I won 32 to 28 to 26.

Tactically, I played a slightly better game than my opponents. I gunned for money , plain and simple, and grabbed it up as fast and as often as possible. They didn't squabble among themselves, but didn't seem to have a focus on whether they wanted more markets, lots of markets, or conering a commodity.

It was a good game, but I agree with some other reviews, I just don't know exactly WHAT I am in the game. The early game was full off crushing Natives, and expanding West, but in the late game when I was losing my home territories to Southern Players, I told them, "You didn't conquer Washington, you just Piggly-Wiggly stores north of the Mason Dixon." So it's a good game design, but a little hard to get into.

Thread: Re: Age of Renaissance? Civilization? History of the World?

Henry To — 2006-11-05T15:26:54+00:00

Aurum wrote:
Manifest Destiny is a "card-driven strategy" multi-player strategy game for 3 to 5 players set in North America from colonial times to the present.
The card in Manifest Destiny is very powerful and may have a time limit. Player's strategy is better to follow the cards he had. That means player rarely decided their own strategy, the cards did.

Manifest Destiny does look like the Age of Renaissance physically, but it's not like the Age of Renaissance actually. In Manifest Destiny, it is nearly hopeless to defend your markets because Cards and Technologies help the Offence a lot.
After the First era, all/most of your markets will be within the Attack range of the others. There is no Front Line or Backyard in the game. Attackers may be airborne to everywhere (by Telegraph/Railroad/Steamship/Aeroplane), and fight better than you (by Telephone). Therefore the best Military Strategy should be Guerilla. Attack! Attack! Attack! make difficulty to plan your expansion in advance because the board always change dramatically.
The only things you can control are your money and cards, although they can be stolen or reduced.

Manifest Destiny combines lot of unique elements of the others.
The market holder is too easy to be defeated by the newcomer. City help your defence (compare to the Attacker's advantages, the help is little). The game encourages the Offence and works like "History of the World". But the attacks in Manifest Destiny do not tell the History and haven't the vigor of a young great kingdom.
Using money to buy technologies acts like "Civilization". I think it is the most success in the game, although the technologies and their functions seems to be not match.

Conclusion:
The game ends when someone get 30VP or more. The player with most VP wins.
All VPs come from technologies or breakthroughs and all of them cost you money. In Manifest Destiny, expansion increase your profit, and offence is much easier than defence.
Manifest Destiny will be played as a Wargame without defending, but only be won as a Civilization-game by collecting money and buying technologies.

Personal comment:
I don't think Manifest Destiny fits the tastes of mine as both a Wargammer and Boardgamer.
As a Wargamer, I like to plan my Military actions, analyze the Military situation and predict where the attack comes from. But in Manifest Destiny, I always exam my remains and looking for the best return of the current round.

As a Boardgamer, I don't like to be defeated by dice and cards.

Mr. Au I would like to give you some responds on your post on MD.

1st, I am sorry, you have been missed the 1.0 of the game rules, "The player best responding to the opportunities the game presents fulfills their destiny - and Wins!" Yes, the card is powerful, player need to make their strategy based on the what cards they have.

2nd, This is MD, this is NOT Age of Renaissance, this is not a game to build your physical empire, actually, at 1.0 also clearly stated "Each player controls one of five mercantile empires" Yes, if you got the progessions you are easlier to attack other mercantile empires, I very agree on this, because this is not a military operation, it is a business operation, business operation of course easlier attack others due to no need to consider supplies, casuties, and more..... OK, if the game system set to defend more easy than attack, then I think it won't delivered what the designer stated in 1.0 "Player best rsponding to the opportunities the game presents fulfills their destiny - and Wins!"

3rd, Correct me if I am wrong, on this post you make the subject to be "Age of Renaissance? Civilization? History of the World?" Why you try to expand this game to be 3 of other games? This is Manifest Destiny, we need try to understand what the designer want to give us, maybe some of the system, similar to other games...Please more respect the game designer, try to figure out what he want to delivered, don't try to unreasonable-streamline-ing the game with other games.....

Conclusion:
With the attacker got more chance to win a compitition, therefore the game give those 3rd or 4th running-up players chance to catch up with leading player, (we played 3 times, each time have 3 players got enough VPs or above to claimed Victory in same phase, of course the most higher VPs is the winner). If the game giving the defender better in defend, then the Victor should be know by finished the 1Era cards.

Personal Comment:
1) It is a well-balanced game, each player got chance to catch up with the leading player, of course, if you keep on drawing low numbers cards and cards without payouts function, I can't help you...... that is the "hard knot" of card driven game.

2) It is a game between simple and Complex, some of our group members dislike this, it should be more simple or be more complex. To me, this is just right, with the delivered details on this game, need about 3 hours to played is reasonable.

3) The interactive between players is rare, the rules not allowed player show cards to other players make the collaboration less useful. If the game allowed player show cards to each others in a negotiation phase, it will more interactives between players.

4) Research Breakthrough always be out of controled in Era 3, as player got 4 Pioneers and a re-roll. I don't think is can't claimed a Breakthrough in 2 turns. If more difficults, of course the game will be longer, but get more chance for other players catch up.

5) Don't be the leading player, unless you don't want be the victor.

Cheers
Henry To
Nov 5, 2006

Thread: Re: Breakthroug Rolls: Allocation of 6's Before or After Rerolls

Ward — 2006-09-30T15:47:40+00:00

Upon rereading the rules, it states there that the 6's are allocated AFTER rerolling.

Image

Maeglor — 2006-08-20T20:41:20+00:00

Image

Maeglor — 2006-08-20T20:17:53+00:00

Image

Maeglor — 2006-08-20T19:51:01+00:00

Image

Maeglor — 2006-08-20T19:50:57+00:00

Image

Maeglor — 2006-08-20T19:20:08+00:00

Thread: Re: Breakthroug Rolls: Allocation of 6's Before or After Rerolls

Ward — 2006-08-04T23:10:32+00:00

We also play it that you must declare the 6's before the reroll. I'm pretty sure it is in the rules somewhere as well.

Thread: Re: Age of Renaissance? Civilization? History of the World?

Bubslug — 2006-07-30T20:07:28+00:00

Interesting suggestion, I've not seen Parthenon - must check it out. And there is also Mare Nostrum (with the expansion rules) which is a shorter civilization building game with an interesting twist on commodity trading.

Thread: Re: Age of Renaissance? Civilization? History of the World?

John Weber — 2006-07-30T17:20:32+00:00

I think MD is alot more enoyable game than AOR, mainly because it's shorter, alot less fiddly (you don't have to calculate all those discounts when you purchase an advance for one thing), and frankly it appeals to much broader cross-section of gamers. It certainly appeals more to an American audience with the map, theme and various event cards than something set the the Middle Ages in Europe does. I think the game designer Bill Crenshaw has done a tremendous job in distilling the essentials of AoR into something that is very playable in about three hours instead of 5 or 6. Having played MD several times now, I have no desire whatsoever to go back to AoR.

As a side note, it will be interesting to see how MD draws in direct competition with AoR at the upcoming World Boardgame Championships in Lancaster PA this week. Last year MD oudrew AoR but some said that was a reflection of the fact that game designer Bill Crenshaw GMed both games and stacked the deck by scheduling MD at times that would attract greater numbers. This year AoR has a different GM so it should be a much fairer comparison of which game is more popular, keeping in mind there are about 130 other games to choose from at the Con.

Regarding the other games mentioned, I find Advanced Civ to also be overly long and fiddly, same as AoR. HotW is slight less fiddly but it seems there's way too much luck and less strategy. For a civ-building game that plays in three hours or less, I recommend Parthenon-Age of the Aegean, even though opinions are decidely mixed among reviewers who have posted here on the Geek.

Thread: Breakthroug Rolls: Allocation of 6's Before or After Rerolls

TrimChris — 2006-07-28T05:03:25+00:00

How does everyone allocate 6's initially rolled for breakthrough's prior to a reroll of one die? We play that players must select a spot(s) with their rolled 6's prior to see the result of the reroll. Makes the breakthroughs a little tougher.

Thread: Re: Age of Renaissance? Civilization? History of the World?

AllenDoum — 2006-05-14T15:43:54+00:00

So this game isn't AoR. The mechanics are based on AoR, but it is a different game, primarily by being more fluid. The lack of a "base of operations" is part of that.

This is reinforced by the effect of Progressions, Breakthroughs, and card effects. All of these that affect competition benefit the attacker. The only things that benefit the defender are cities and the reroll from one card (and that could be used to attack, instead). so you are not going to be able to defend anything is this game.

That means you have to play differently, and not see your "empire" in terms of geography once you get past the initial expansion. That is over after Era 1.

Although, that is not entirely true. In a nearly every game there is a player who will not be able to expand where he wants because his last territory in a region has been lost, which cancels the RailRoad effect. Airplanes and e-Commerce, which are the "go anywhere" effects, usually come into play only at the end of the game, or if a player develops them by ignoring other Progressions. That is a style of play issue, as players cannot get everything before the game ends.

This may not be to everyones taste, but for me, the fact that it is different is an advantage. In comparison to AoR, the fact that it doesn't take as long to play is the other main advantage.

I want to explain my comments on Pro Sports. Everyone who has knocked this game on the Progression effects not being realistic has used that as an example. The fact that cities go to great lengths to attract a major sports francise mean that the effect makes quite a bit of sense. Ask the fans in any city that has lost one, or built a stadium to attract one.

Thread: Re: Native Sovereignty questions

AllenDoum — 2006-05-09T01:28:39+00:00

Ward wrote:
There is a Manifest Destiny PBeM tournament being run by Bill Crenshaw currently. The play can be followed on ACTS and you can see here:

http://acts.warhorsesim.com/dynamic/journal.asp?id=15166&fil...

in message 155 where the same question was asked to Bill re: Native Sovereignty and the reply was, yes there are fractions for the profit reduction. 1 territory is a $5 penalty, 3 is $10, etc.

OK. But it is not what the card reads.

Thread: Re: Native Sovereignty questions

Ward — 2006-05-09T00:32:44+00:00

There is a Manifest Destiny PBeM tournament being run by Bill Crenshaw currently. The play can be followed on ACTS and you can see here:

http://acts.warhorsesim.com/dynamic/journal.asp?id=15166&fil...

in message 155 where the same question was asked to Bill re: Native Sovereignty and the reply was, yes there are fractions for the profit reduction. 1 territory is a $5 penalty, 3 is $10, etc.

Image

HazMatt — 2006-04-01T07:21:49+00:00

At GameStorm 8

Image

Boomer — 2006-03-13T17:41:05+00:00

Game designer Bill Crenshaw playing his game