Game: 1960: The Making of the President

Thread: Re: obama mccain expansion!

JasonMatthews — 2008-12-02T18:06:12+00:00

hibikir wrote:
Jason, you have a tough job ahead of you: IMO, the most interesting part of the campaign is the relationship between issues and voting demographics, and finding ways to emphasize the parts of the message that drive people to the voting booth. How can we deal with that in an electoral board without making the game very complicated? The flavor has to be abstracted out. Imagine the pain of having to keep the demographics of every state in your head. I can't wait to see what you've done to make sure that nation-wide actions have different levels of influence in every state.

Jorge that is truly amazing. You have really NAILED one of the primary emphases of the game. There will still be an important even component, but this will be a major difference from 1960. As I have said though, the whole thrust of this game is different than 1960 and comparisons will only be appropriate at the 1000 foot level.

Jason

Thread: Re: 1960 - The unexpected luck of the draw

jeffk — 2008-12-02T15:04:48+00:00

Nice review, and pretty much matches my opinion of the game. It's a fun, medium weight game that has some tense decisions but doesn't melt your brain.

You'll get varying opinions on whether 1960 or Twlight Struggle has more luck. I'm of the opinion that TS has more luck. It's cards have a wider range of power and a d6 is used to determine the outcome of some pretty significant actions. Counter-intuitively, it also requires more skill and has steeper learning curve. Unfortunately, there is the chance that a really bad draw can cost you the game if your opponent has a couple of scoring cards in hand to capitalize on your misfortune (or, even worse, if YOU have those scoring cards in hand and are forced to play them without being able to gain the advantage in the appropriate region).

1960 doesn't suffer from that, IMO. In fact, I've played games where momentum went almost unused as we learned to manage our hands to minimize the damage done by playing your opponent's events. A well played card near the end can be decisive, but I've only seen this in very close games. I've never seen a person with a solid lead lose as the result of one or two cards played at the end of the game.

However, if you think the theme of 1960 is well done, you should check out TS. It's probably one of the best non-AT games when it comes to implementing it's theme.

Thread: Re: obama mccain expansion!

hibikir — 2008-12-02T14:55:59+00:00

Jason, you have a tough job ahead of you: IMO, the most interesting part of the campaign is the relationship between issues and voting demographics, and finding ways to emphasize the parts of the message that drive people to the voting booth. How can we deal with that in an electoral board without making the game very complicated? The flavor has to be abstracted out. Imagine the pain of having to keep the demographics of every state in your head. I can't wait to see what you've done to make sure that nation-wide actions have different levels of influence in every state.

Thread: Re: obama mccain expansion!

dogawful — 2008-12-02T14:37:31+00:00

Thread: Re: obama mccain expansion!

joebelanger — 2008-12-02T14:18:36+00:00

Constantinople wrote:

hello mcfly, anything in there???

on the contrary, Palin energized the Republican base

and the leftist suporters of Obama will never ever understand that

the economy won the election for Obama

not the selection of Palin

the drive-by media savaged Palin and formed the image of Palin

the Republicans lost the image making process to the left media

she was the most refreshing politician out there this time around

the media is a joke

the washington post did a news article after the election , of course

where they admitted that they were biased in favor of Obama

the writer acted as if she were surprised to learned this !

as if she really believed that the main stream media is fair and unbalanced

all I can say about Obama:

WELCOME BACK CARTER!!

welcome back ee cummings

Thread: 1960 - The unexpected luck of the draw

zinho73 — 2008-12-02T12:05:06+00:00

This is going to be different from my usual reviews as I will not be so humorous about it and will also try to organize things a little bit differently. I still won’t get into the rules details and will instead try to focus on my opinions about the game.

People here on BGG tend to prefer games with less luck involved. Just take a quick look in the top 20. I would say that the cube tower in Shogun is (maybe) the most unpredictable feature in all those games, but leave one or two games out and you see that the amount of luck required to go well on those games won’t be enough to make you find a dime in the ground.

However, of those games, I’ve never played Twilight Struggle, so I can’t say if luck is a factor in the game, but I just assumed that it won’t, based solely on its position in the BGG ranking.

But I recently had the opportunity to get some plays of its younger brother, 1960 – The Making of a President. I’ve been told that they share some similarities, but are two different beasts. In any case, what surprised me about the game was the amount of luck involved in it. I was expecting a much more heavy duty game – something like chess with cards.

What I found was a somewhat light experience in terms of brain power consumption, although a very engaging and competitive game. It certainly wasn’t what I was expecting.

But is it good or bad? Read on.

First of all, I think this game is a mouthful of theme. The boards and the cards both do a fantastic job to put you in the helm of the campaign for Nixon or Keneddy. You are trying to get the majority of the votes on the American states and to do so you are going to travel from place to place, invest in media, conquer the sympathy of the press and debate hot themes. The mechanics for all this stuff are all well integrated and the game flows like a river, with rarely a dull moment.

What is fantastic about this game is the card play: having in your hands cards that are beneficial to your enemy is something brilliant. Also, you have to choose between playing the card for the event or for the CP (Campaign Points, or action points, really), which can lead to some tough and interesting decisions. That’s the heart of the game and I must say it is a very healthy and strong heart.

And here is also where the game surprised me most: I found that some cards are very powerful, almost too powerful actually, and having the right card at the right moment in your hand can make a decisive blow against your opponent. Luck is definitely present here. I’ve seen some very balanced games (with great swings for both sides) and I’ve seen some players cornered without alternative, because their hand wasn’t up to the challenge.

It is obvious that the more you play, the less of a factor luck will be, if only because the knowledge of the cards will better prepare you for the future, but less experienced players might find themselves without steam to carry on their strategy.

The game also uses the momentum system to block some cards that would be too harmful for you and to steal the power of the cards your opponent are playing, so you can, up to a certain point, mitigate the effects of the more devastating cards.

But some luck swings can hurt regardless of your experience level. There are cards that can really stop Kennedy or Nixon in their tracks – if they are played in the beginning or in the mid game, you will be hurt, but you can probably maneuver around them in some way, postponing the fight for the states that are blocked to you in that moment – but if they are successfully played in the endgame… Well, good luck.

There is also a system of cubes thrown in a bag that are used to resolve some support and initiative issues. Basically, if you play a weaker card, you can put more cubes in the bag, so you have a better probability to pull one of your cubes from it in some key moments. You can have some pretty unexpected draws here also, but I think the system is OK.
And I also think the card system OK, too, I wasn’t expecting this luck factor in the game, but it is certainly not game breaking and keeps things exciting throughout. It also beautifully matches with the theme – if you are running for the presidency of the United States, you better be prepared for everything.

The setup is boring but not terribly long, but the game has simple rules, no downtime, plays quickly and is quite unpredictable. Not quite as heavy or brainburning as I thought it would be, but a very good choice to spend some time with a friend. A solid 8 in my opinion.

Thread: Re: obama mccain expansion!

thelegendofhockey — 2008-12-02T06:01:12+00:00

Wow. I've been wanting & waiting (for the lack of a better term) an "expansion" for 1960 ever since I first saw this game on the geek.

I mean you could just see how this could port to all the other elections, kind of like a political TtR. To me, it just seemed like you could just add a new set of event cards a voala you'd have 2000:the Making of A Dummy. (no disrespect - I mean comparing it to TtR).

It was soon pointed out that the current map and electoral vote makeup really wouldn't support all previous eras/elections. I guess it would be a bit difficult campaigning in Louisiana before the Louisiana Purchase. Was there even an electoral college back then?

Anyway, It sounds like the 2008 edition could be a totaly different animal though and it also brings up all kinds of new questions. Is it still going to be an event driven game? Will it still be card driven? Will issues play a larger role in the game? I'm just trying to get a feel for how much the game is going to change.

Thanks for a cool game and I look forward to your future releases,

Jeff

Thread: Re: debate question

Ricomaurer — 2008-12-02T01:39:26+00:00

Wow, I had no idea. I will keep this in mind for my next 1960 game.

Thread: Re: obama mccain expansion!

PopeCharming — 2008-12-02T01:28:55+00:00

I'm also very pleased about this game! For what its worth, I add my voice to those who want a number of Veep possibilities.

Thread: Re: debate question

scottandkimr — 2008-12-01T20:01:47+00:00

I see, thanks guys

Thread: Re: obama mccain expansion!

chronopublish — 2008-12-01T18:37:17+00:00

I am really happy to hear that a 2008 version of the game is being made.

I also would be first in line to buy a 2000 version!

Thread: Re: This game is desperate for an Online version complete with AI!

JayAdan — 2008-12-01T18:34:32+00:00

I don't want to dispel any fantasies here, but the initial game on GTO will not have AI. We don't have a plan in place for an AI at the moment but I will not rule out that we might have one in the future. We love having AIs for our games but the resources involved for creating one for a game like 1960 are more than we have available at the moment.

Having said that, I will say that I believe that our implementation of the game to be far and away better than other online versions that you may have tried. Our guys know UI and they do it well. In fact, this game will feature a number of upgrades to our standard UI.

Add to that the ability to find a large group of people who are on the site at all hours looking for games to play and you have the opportunity to jump into a game when you want to play it.

GameTable Online has been experiencing record growth for the past 3-4 months. Both in the number of people registering for the site as well as the number of games that we've added this year over past years. We have a great mix of games to satisfy a wide range of tastes.

Unfortunately, we're also late with getting 1960 out due to a number of factors. It's very, very close... but it's not done yet.

Thread: Re: obama mccain expansion!

galeninjapan — 2008-12-01T17:36:30+00:00

From wikipedia
In the aftermath of the election, the first independent recount was conducted by The Miami Herald and USA Today. Bush would have won in all legally requested recount scenarios.

Thread: Re: obama mccain expansion!

edosan — 2008-12-01T17:28:09+00:00

KrisVerbeeck wrote:
I think the 2000 election is broken.

In the end bush plays the card I demand a recount and wins. this is the strategy that will win every game.

galeninjapan wrote:
Yes, its a shame that we have as system where upon closer inspection the results are a little different.

Bush stopped the recount with Bush v. Gore.

Anyway. Back to talking about games!

Thread: Re: obama mccain expansion!

galeninjapan — 2008-12-01T17:15:39+00:00

KrisVerbeeck wrote:
I think the 2000 election is broken.

In the end bush plays the card I demand a recount and wins. this is the strategy that will win every game.
It will be in the rules as well. Bush can at the end of the game if he has lost reverse the result with any card that he can use to demand a recount.
In case he doesn't have any cards rhis proves that there was a mistake and bush still wins.

the recount doesn't take place. The results of the necessary key states to hand Bush the win are automatically. You could save yourself time by playing the card in the beginning.

as in small print it is written that asking for a recount will win Bush the game at any point.

for that reason the current nomination and election make a far better game.

Yes, its a shame that we have as system where upon closer inspection the results are a little different.

Thread: Re: obama mccain expansion!

KrisVerbeeck — 2008-12-01T16:58:22+00:00

I think the 2000 election is broken.

In the end bush plays the card I demand a recount and wins. this is the strategy that will win every game.
It will be in the rules as well. Bush can at the end of the game if he has lost reverse the result with any card that he can use to demand a recount.
In case he doesn't have any cards rhis proves that there was a mistake and bush still wins.

the recount doesn't take place. The results of the necessary key states to hand Bush the win are automatically. You could save yourself time by playing the card in the beginning.

as in small print it is written that asking for a recount will win Bush the game at any point.

for that reason the current nomination and election make a far better game.

Thread: Re: obama mccain expansion!

galeninjapan — 2008-12-01T14:24:34+00:00

I think the election would have been a lot closer than you are saying. For example, if Romney would have been picked he would have been given some economic credibility and none of the SNL stuff would have happened.

Thread: Re: obama mccain expansion!

charlesf — 2008-12-01T14:16:39+00:00

JasonMatthews wrote:

I think the McCain campaign had at least 3 significant decision points -- the Vice Presidential Nomination, the Debates, and the response to the melt down. McCain flubbed all three, though Palin was the least immediately obvious. That's why he isn't our president. I don't think those were inevitable (well, maybe his debate performance -- but even there he fell for kind of a verbal jujitsu).

He sure messed up bigtime. Steve Schmidt was the "mastermind" behind the Palin pick and the campaign suspension gimmick. And McCain embraced those decisions hook, line and sinker.

The idealised McCain Salter imagines in his books and McCain speeches might have proved competitive. But that person doesn't exist.

I think a fifty-fifty balanced game would strain credulity. But hey, I'm willing to look past that and game it out because it's fun. Even if it's McCain on steroids we get in the game.

Anyway, I'm anxious to see what mechanisms you will employ. I think the news cycle national conversation bit is really big these days.

Thread: Re: debate question

JasonMatthews — 2008-12-01T06:13:53+00:00

galeninjapan wrote:
To end that issue in the debate.

This might be particularly helpful, if you are sure to lose the issue, but are aiming for bigger rewards later in the debate round, so you want the issue you are going to lose to resolve earlier.

Also, don't forget, if you played a card with ONLY your opponent's icon, you've got to play it on his side of the table. You might do that to help yourself a little during the course of one of the earlier rounds.

Jason

Thread: Re: obama mccain expansion!

byronczimmer — 2008-12-01T05:53:17+00:00

Zman wrote:
I don't have much info but Jason and Christian are working on such a game. As for why not 2000 elections I think it is more the timing: this election is still hot and a game about it has a good chance at sales. Waiting another few months or year (or some relatively short time period) to do a 2000 election won't hurt its chances in the marketplace too much.

Zev Shlasinger, President
Z-Man Games, Inc.
www.zmangames.com

Personally, I'd be much more interested in seeing what they come up with for the 2000 election.

Thread: Re: debate question

galeninjapan — 2008-12-01T03:58:19+00:00

To end that issue in the debate.

Thread: debate question

scottandkimr — 2008-12-01T03:49:30+00:00

I read through the rules for the first time. It says that a player can place a card on either his side or his opponent's side. Why would a player put one on his opponent's side? Thanks

Thread: Re: obama mccain expansion!

utoption2 — 2008-11-30T19:54:19+00:00

Thank you for correcting my ignorance of the 1860 election!

It is still not clear to me why the 2000 election would not be preferable for the basis of a 1960 expansion, however.

JasonMatthews wrote:
utoption2 wrote:
It would be great if this thread could focus on the merits of 1960 spinoff as a 2000 or 2008 themed game (or another election) rather than a political discussion. Those discussions have a home in another forum.

Also, I think the 1860 election would make a great basis for a spinoff.

1860 is not a particularly interesting election on the national scale. Once the Democrats split over slavery (and isn't that REALLY what this election is all about), the Republicans had it in the proverbial electoral bag. You could wind that clock back, but to do so you have to start getting into the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the Lecompton Constitution and a myriad of other issues that led to the Democratic split. The truly interesting part of the 1860 election is the Republican primary, where you have a dark horse candidate -- Lincoln -- pulling off a huge upset.

Of course, 1960 as a game, also does not really make a good platform for election from the previous century. The style of campaigning and the process are SOOOO different, it would require an entirely new game to capture their flavor. I doubt whether or not people would recognize the dynamics we were trying to represent.

Of course, as mentioned earlier, we ARE designing an entirely new game for 2008, so in and of itself, that's not a deal breaker. But if we were ever serious about an 1860 game, it would be about the Republican primary.

Jason

Thread: Re: obama mccain expansion!

JasonMatthews — 2008-11-30T19:31:47+00:00

utoption2 wrote:
It would be great if this thread could focus on the merits of 1960 spinoff as a 2000 or 2008 themed game (or another election) rather than a political discussion. Those discussions have a home in another forum.

Also, I think the 1860 election would make a great basis for a spinoff.

1860 is not a particularly interesting election on the national scale. Once the Democrats split over slavery (and isn't that REALLY what this election is all about), the Republicans had it in the proverbial electoral bag. You could wind that clock back, but to do so you have to start getting into the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the Lecompton Constitution and a myriad of other issues that led to the Democratic split. The truly interesting part of the 1860 election is the Republican primary, where you have a dark horse candidate -- Lincoln -- pulling off a huge upset.

Of course, 1960 as a game, also does not really make a good platform for election from the previous century. The style of campaigning and the process are SOOOO different, it would require an entirely new game to capture their flavor. I doubt whether or not people would recognize the dynamics we were trying to represent.

Of course, as mentioned earlier, we ARE designing an entirely new game for 2008, so in and of itself, that's not a deal breaker. But if we were ever serious about an 1860 game, it would be about the Republican primary.

Jason

Thread: Re: obama mccain expansion!

cbs42 — 2008-11-30T18:26:14+00:00

This game is for those of you who thought that the 2008 election season was entirely too short, and wish it could have dragged on for another few months.

Thread: Re: obama mccain expansion!

galeninjapan — 2008-11-30T18:09:12+00:00

I want to be able to chose Ron Paul as my running mate.

Thread: Re: obama mccain expansion!

utoption2 — 2008-11-30T17:59:17+00:00

It would be great if this thread could focus on the merits of 1960 spinoff as a 2000 or 2008 themed game (or another election) rather than a political discussion. Those discussions have a home in another forum.

Also, I think the 1860 election would make a great basis for a spinoff.

Constantinople wrote:

hello mcfly, anything in there???

on the contrary, Palin energized the Republican base

and the leftist suporters of Obama will never ever understand that

the economy won the election for Obama

not the selection of Palin

the drive-by media savaged Palin and formed the image of Palin

the Republicans lost the image making process to the left media

she was the most refreshing politician out there this time around

the media is a joke

the washington post did a news article after the election , of course

where they admitted that they were biased in favor of Obama

the writer acted as if she were surprised to learned this !

as if she really believed that the main stream media is fair and unbalanced

all I can say about Obama:

WELCOME BACK CARTER!!

Thread: Re: obama mccain expansion!

cscottk — 2008-11-30T17:39:13+00:00

Thread: Re: obama mccain expansion!

Grudunza — 2008-11-30T15:27:00+00:00

I guess the problem with having alternate VP choices might be that you're dealing much more heavily in speculation then. Which is just fine, but there is a difference, because we know how things turned out based on the actual VP choices and the other various factors... 1960 seems to be about taking the events that actually happened and playing around with them in different ways to see what the outcome may be. Of course, it's all somewhat abstracted anyway, but this might be using more factors based on speculation. But however you put that together, I'm sure it'll be a great game. And of course it's not supposed to be a historical re-creation, anyway.

I do think the VP choices could have been a factor... If Obama had gone with Hillary does that help or hurt him? If McCain had chosen Romney that might have lost him votes from his own party at first, with some of the Christian right against his Mormonism, but it might have seemed a brilliant choice once the economic meltdown happened. Palin obviously gave a boost to the GOP ticket at first, but if you choose her as VP can you find a way to use her more effectively?

Actually, in addition to being able to choose VPs, I'd also really like the option to try different candidates entirely. Obama vs. Giuliani, for example, would have been a tougher choice for America, methinks, and things like Clinton vs. Romney or Edwards vs. Huckabee could be amusing.

Thread: Re: obama mccain expansion!

JasonMatthews — 2008-11-30T09:27:34+00:00

Duglis wrote:
galeninjapan wrote:
Can we get the option to choose our Vice Presidential candidates? It would be interesting to see some different match ups.

Now, that would make the game VERY interesting and change the entire appeal of it. Good idea.

Also perhaps, having some aspect of the primary in the game too. I don't know how, though.

I've been thinking about this very carefully, and I am inclined to think the answer will be yes, as its kind of a pivotal question in the campaign and should be an element of strategy. Does McCain need to shore up his base? Or can he afford a choice with more appeal to swing voters like Lieberman?

Anyway -- and this is very important for everyone to understand -- the 2008 game will have almost nothing to do with 1960 , other than the fact that Christian and I will have designed both, and they are both about a Presidential election. The similarities end there.

However, the system that we are creating may more easily port to different elections, particularly those in the last 20 years. So, if this works, and people enjoy the system, I would not be surprised to see it ported to some of the other elections people have mentioned.

Jason

Thread: Re: obama mccain expansion!

Duglis — 2008-11-30T09:03:37+00:00

galeninjapan wrote:
Can we get the option to choose our Vice Presidential candidates? It would be interesting to see some different match ups.

Now, that would make the game VERY interesting and change the entire appeal of it. Good idea.

Also perhaps, having some aspect of the primary in the game too. I don't know how, though.

Thread: Re: Support Checks when placing cubes using events

TheCat — 2008-11-30T08:20:54+00:00

Interestingly, the designer suggests this variant.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/2819479#2819479

Thread: Re: obama mccain expansion!

galeninjapan — 2008-11-30T04:53:01+00:00

Can we get the option to choose our Vice Presidential candidates? It would be interesting to see some different match ups.

Thread: Re: obama mccain expansion!

Duglis — 2008-11-30T04:47:11+00:00

Styfen wrote:

tbh, while the Obama/McCain election may be fresh in people's minds I think it's the Bush/Gore one that would still be a more interesting play.

I'm for 2000
Bush/Gore would be a far far far faaaaaaaaaar better game than the recent election. I am a democrat, yet I would never buy a 2008 election game. What a bland election as election cycles go. 2000 was a nailbiter with many more equal issues and of course, it could have gone either way.

1912 would be interesting too with the 3 parties, Wilson, TRoosevelt and Taft.

Thread: Re: obama mccain expansion!

Styfen — 2008-11-29T19:28:21+00:00

Zman wrote:
I don't have much info but Jason and Christian are working on such a game. As for why not 2000 elections I think it is more the timing: this election is still hot and a game about it has a good chance at sales. Waiting another few months or year (or some relatively short time period) to do a 2000 election won't hurt its chances in the marketplace too much.

Zev Shlasinger, President
Z-Man Games, Inc.
www.zmangames.com
tbh, while the Obama/McCain election may be fresh in people's minds I think it's the Bush/Gore one that would still be a more interesting play.

Thread: Re: obama mccain expansion!

berserkley — 2008-11-29T19:04:37+00:00

Yeah, the "liberal media" again. Bastards.

Thread: Re: obama mccain expansion!

noddingoff — 2008-11-29T13:20:18+00:00

Had me going for a second, great satire!

Thread: Re: obama mccain expansion!

Constantinople — 2008-11-29T12:38:32+00:00

hello mcfly, anything in there???

on the contrary, Palin energized the Republican base

and the leftist suporters of Obama will never ever understand that

the economy won the election for Obama

not the selection of Palin

the drive-by media savaged Palin and formed the image of Palin

the Republicans lost the image making process to the left media

she was the most refreshing politician out there this time around

the media is a joke

the washington post did a news article after the election , of course

where they admitted that they were biased in favor of Obama

the writer acted as if she were surprised to learned this !

as if she really believed that the main stream media is fair and unbalanced

all I can say about Obama:

WELCOME BACK CARTER!!

Thread: Re: obama mccain expansion!

fubar awol — 2008-11-29T12:36:41+00:00

BrenoK wrote:
Here's my suggestion for a card in the game:

Sarah Palin. Democratic event, 4 OPs.

Effect: McCain player fails (worse than just losing).

Actually, The Palin card should give her her on-board figure (that ought to be an interesting meeple) that is more effective in states where it is placed than the McCain figure (and when placed with the McCain Figure, improves his capability).

And there ought to be a "Biden's Gaff-a-day actually gets press coverage" card that has a major impact on the race.

What really scares me is if something happens to Obama...

(edit to correct spelling, uhg)

Thread: Re: obama mccain expansion!

BrenoK — 2008-11-29T11:49:33+00:00

The election really was set before November, but in the beginning there was really no way of knowing who would win. Jason is correct, this happened because of McCain's mistakes, that a crafty player should be able to avoid.

What still surprises me about American culture is that even after the (deservedly) least popular government in America's history the Opposition still had to put an effort into winning this.

Thread: Re: obama mccain expansion!

JasonMatthews — 2008-11-29T10:18:17+00:00

utoption2 wrote:
I am all for a 1960 spin-off. In fact, I'd place a pre-order with my local games store.

However, this may sound obvious, but wouldn't the 2000 election be more dynamic?

Seems like this election was done in August.

I don't really see it that way, but even if that is true, we certainly had a LOT of election before August this cycle. We always seem to look back on elections as if the end result was an inevitability.

I'll never forget election night 2000. Early in the evening, when Gore's victory seemed inevitable (with FL in Gore's column) the talking heads on CNN et. al. were all talking about the quality of Gore's campaign and how George W. Bush just was too inarticulate to be elected. 24 hours later, the were talking about Gore being the worst Democratic nominee in a generation.

I think the McCain campaign had at least 3 significant decision points -- the Vice Presidential Nomination, the Debates, and the response to the melt down. McCain flubbed all three, though Palin was the least immediately obvious. That's why he isn't our president. I don't think those were inevitable (well, maybe his debate performance -- but even there he fell for kind of a verbal jujitsu). Anyway, the players will have the chance to prove that Obama was beatable.

Jason

Thread: Re: obama mccain expansion!

Paolo Robino — 2008-11-29T06:39:28+00:00

Great news! Can we consider this an official press release?

Thread: Re: obama mccain expansion!

dirubin — 2008-11-29T05:00:08+00:00

BrenoK wrote:
Here's my suggestion for a card in the game:

Sarah Palin. Democratic event, 4 OPs.

Effect: McCain player fails (worse than just losing).

Palin would just say your comment proves your not a real American. Of course, Palin thinks I'm not, either, being as I reside deep in the heart of Jersey...

Thread: Re: obama mccain expansion!

BrenoK — 2008-11-29T02:56:45+00:00

Here's my suggestion for a card in the game:

Sarah Palin. Democratic event, 4 OPs.

Effect: McCain player fails (worse than just losing).

Thread: Re: obama mccain expansion!

Zman — 2008-11-29T02:34:40+00:00

I don't have much info but Jason and Christian are working on such a game. As for why not 2000 elections I think it is more the timing: this election is still hot and a game about it has a good chance at sales. Waiting another few months or year (or some relatively short time period) to do a 2000 election won't hurt its chances in the marketplace too much.

Zev Shlasinger, President
Z-Man Games, Inc.
www.zmangames.com

Thread: Re: obama mccain expansion!

UnknownParkerBrother — 2008-11-29T01:02:02+00:00

quartex wrote:
Is this for real Zev or are you just kidding. I'd love to get any more information you can provide.

Yes, that's the real Zev. And a great guy too, in my brief experience meeting him.

Thread: Re: obama mccain expansion!

utoption2 — 2008-11-28T23:19:36+00:00

I am all for a 1960 spin-off. In fact, I'd place a pre-order with my local games store.

However, this may sound obvious, but wouldn't the 2000 election be more dynamic?

Seems like this election was done in August.

Thread: Re: obama mccain expansion!

quartex — 2008-11-28T22:50:04+00:00

Zman wrote:
marxiedog wrote:
so, who is working on the obama versus mccain 2008 expansion and when will it be released?

We are - hopefully in a few months. Actually it is planned to be its own game - no need to own 1960.

Zev Shlasinger, President
Z-Man Games, Inc.
www.zmangames.com

I've heard the question raised before, and everyone has said it would be too much work. Along with changing the states' electoral votes, you'd have to redesign the entire deck. Is this for real Zev or are you just kidding. I'd love to get any more information you can provide.

Thread: Re: obama mccain expansion!

berserkley — 2008-11-28T22:41:52+00:00

On the other hand, I think it'll be a blast.

Thread: Re: obama mccain expansion!

Marcus de Bassus — 2008-11-28T22:28:57+00:00

Given the outcome, I'm having a hard time seeing a fun game.

Image

sauceybugger — 2008-11-13T16:34:02+00:00

Back of box

Image

sauceybugger — 2008-11-13T05:59:03+00:00

Front of rulebook

Image

sauceybugger — 2008-11-13T05:58:23+00:00

Rulebook back

Image

Wolfenstad Manuel — 2008-11-07T22:59:34+00:00

My version of the board.

Image

patchwerq — 2008-11-04T02:41:40+00:00

Handmade bag for 1960:The Making of the President (Front, Back and Inside)!

Image

nguthrie — 2008-10-25T00:55:17+00:00

My brother in-law made this he is geekier another way

Image

ronster0 — 2008-10-12T00:37:20+00:00

Nixon in trouble in the East

Image

James_Blair — 2008-09-21T12:02:06+00:00

My 30th Birthday Cake

Image

billgoode — 2008-08-15T05:45:44+00:00

The east at the dawn of the final turn. Ended up being too much for Kennedy to take care of.

Image

ColtsFan76 — 2008-08-13T04:48:31+00:00

2008 Expansion?