Manifest Destiny is a game for 3 to 5 people, in which each player controls a mercantile empire based in North America, struggling for economic supremacy. In this review I'm going to give an overview of how the game is played followed by my opinions about it.

Basic Concepts

There are four major aspects to Manifest Destiny: control of territory, purchase of technologies, research of breakthroughs, and card play, which can affect the other three aspects and also has some effects in and of itself.

Players are struggling to gain control of markets in the areas shown on the map. Why are they doing this? Because the number of territories a player controls largely determines his Profit, the amount of money he receives at the end of each turn. Also, each area produces one or two types of resources. When and if that resource pays out, players receive money for controlling territories of that type. The areas are grouped together into regions, such as Northern U.S. and Southwest. In order to access any areas beyond those where the players start you will need to purchase the appropriate technologies.

Money is necessary for just about everything you can do in the game, but is not an end unto itself. To win, you need to gain the most victory points by the end of the game. And victory points come primarily from technologies and breakthroughs.

Both technologies and breakthroughs are worth from 1 to 3 victory points each. Since they're the source of almost all victory points, the game comes down to a struggle to accumulate enough cash to be able to buy technologies and research breakthroughs faster than your opponents. If a player reaches 30 victory points then the game ends (after all other players finish the current phase) and the player with the most victory points wins.

The cards have a major impact on how all of this plays out. All of them can be used as some sort of event. In addition to an event, many of them can cause cash payouts based on control of a particular resource. A few cards are special Destiny cards that when played cause both an event and a payout. And besides all of this, all cards are labeled with a number that is used in determining turn order for the next round.

The cards also determine what era the game is in. At the beginning of the game only first era cards are available. When the deck is exhausted the second era cards are added to the discards (although some cards are removed from play after use) and the second era begins. When that deck is exhausted the third era cards are added and that era begins. If the deck is exhausted during the third era then the game ends and the player with the highest number of victory points wins. You can only play a card during the era it belongs to, or in the turn after the end of that era.

Playing the Game

Each player starts with three cards and some money. Using this starting cash, and presumably based on what cards they have in hand, they must bid for first choice of starting location. With three players the starting locations are Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Louisiana. Mexico and Quebec are added when there are additional players, but otherwise they and the entire region to which they belong are out of play for that game.

Next, the turn order is determined. On the first turn, the player who won the opening game bidding gets to choose where he wants to go in the turn order, followed by the second highest bidder, etc. On subsequent turns, the order is based on cards played during the card play round of the last turn.

Card phase

After turn order is established, the game moves to the Card phase. Each player can play as many cards as he wants out of his hand. The basic effects of the cards are described above. One important nuance is that normally only one Destiny card can be played per turn amongst all players. Also, holding too many cards in your hand at the end of this phase will cause your Profit to drop.

Every card has a unique number on it. After everyone has played (or not played) their cards, the numbers are examined. The player who played the highest numbered card will get first choice of where to be in next turn's order of play. It is possible to play some cards ("News" cards) purely for the turn ordering effect.

Investment phase

After the Card phase comes the Investment phase, when players can spend their money to purchase technologies and tokens.

There are fifteen technologies in the game, organized into 5 groups of 3 technologies each. The first technology in each category has to be purchased before you can buy the second tech in that category. So for instance, you have to buy railroads before you buy steamships before you buy airplanes. Also, you're required to have all of the tier 1 techs before you can buy a tier 3 tech. Every player may purchase any or all of the technologies. Each technology confers some sort of special power or bonus on the players who have purchased it, and if you buy all of the techs in a tier you get a bonus to your Profit.

Tokens have a variety of uses. They are necessary to gain control of new territory during the Expansion phase. And they can be used during the Investment phase to get pioneers, cities, and (if you have the appropriate technology) cards. Each player can buy up to one each of these three items. If you are the first player to buy an item, it costs one token. The second person to buy that same item pays two tokens, etc. One of the key mechanisms of the game is that your position in the turn order limits the number of tokens you can purchase. Generally speaking, you will be limited to fewer tokens than the players that move after you. For example, the first player can only purchase three tokens, the second player can buy up to five. So the first player will have first crack at buying the various items and could get all three for one token each, but that would use every token he has leaving nothing for territorial expansion. (Tokens can't be saved from turn to turn.)

Cities are placed in territories that you control. They'll allow that territory to produce more goods if there is a payout, and they make the territory easier to defend in competition. Whichever player has the most cities under his control gets two victory points. These are the only victory points that can change hands during the game, the rest are all tied to technologies and breakthroughs.

Pioneers (think explorers/scientists/innovators) are needed to research breakthroughs. Like technologies, breakthroughs confer special powers on the players who achieve them. Each breakthrough has two or more numbered boxes. During the Investment phase you can pick a breakthrough to research and roll dice equal to the number of your pioneers. For every number you roll that matches a number on that breakthrough, you fill in that box. If you fill in all of the boxes then you've achieved the breakthrough. Unlike technologies, breakthroughs are only available to the player (or occasionally two players) who achieves them first, and they can take several turns to accomplish. So it's possible to compete with people for a breakthrough. You can only research breakthroughs if you've reached the appropriate era. There are four in the first era and three in the other two.

Expansion phase

After the Investment phase is the Expansion phase. In turn order, players may use any tokens they have remaining to expand into new territories (they lose any tokens left at the end of this phase). If a territory is empty they simply spend as many tokens as its value (either 1 or 2) to put a marker there. At the beginning of the game you can only expand into adjacent territories, and there are some regions that are completely off-limits. You can get into these other regions and gain the ability to expand across longer distances by getting the right technologies.

You can try to take control of territories that are controlled by other players. You pay the normal cost in tokens and then make a competition roll. They roll two dice the defender rolls one, and the single highest numbered die wins the conflict (defenders win ties). A city allows the defender to roll two dice, and there are numerous technologies that affect conflict as well.

Adjustment phase

After Expansion comes the last phase, Adjustment. The player who expanded into the most new territories this turn receives a card. All players adjust their Profit up or down if they gained or lost territory, and then collect cash equal to their new Profit. Then all players get one card. And then it's on to the next turn.


My Opinion

I think Manifest Destiny (MD) is a very good game in its own right. And I also believe that it succeeds in remaking Age of Renaissance (AoR) in a simpler, faster-playing manner, while maintaining most of the aspects that made AoR a fun game to play.

What I found most interesting about MD is the interaction between order of play and the ability to purchase tokens. Going first is great in many respects, because it guarantees you the chance to play a Destiny card if you want, gives you the lowest possible price for pioneers, cities, and card purchases, and lets you take the first shot at rolling for breakthroughs that turn. But because you are limited to only three tokens, you probably won't be able to take advantage of all of these opportunities! And going first in the Expansion phase is mostly a liability. It can help you avoid getting boxed in. But the other players will probably have more tokens to expand with than you, and the conflict rules favor the attacker…

What if you go last, not first? Well you'll have more tokens than the first player. But you're at the mercy of the other players in the card phase (What if they play a destiny card before you can?) and in the Investment phase (They can drive up the prices of pioneers, etc., and research all the breakthroughs). You'll probably have more tokens to expand with, but you're also more likely to have to compete for markets.

What it comes down to is that you will hardly ever be able to do everything you want in a given turn. You are constantly faced with difficult decisions. And you are only likely to get ahead if you can devise a strategy to deal with this fact. The technologies and breakthroughs are key in this regard, since many of them mitigate the problems that you'll face because of the turn order effects (e.g., giving you extra tokens, a free city every turn, allowing you to expand by sea, etc.).

All of this is similar to AoR, where conflict is weighted to favor the player with the fewest expansion markers. But I think MD hard limits, based on turn order, and the other turn order effects that are unique to this game, are easier to understand and have a more predictable and balanced outcome.

Another thing that I like is the way cards are handled. The fact that every card has an event on it means that it is easier to avoid making payouts that are unfavorable to you than it is in AoR. But then there are a number of other nifty rules in place that keep things from going to the other extreme of never having payouts that benefit other people. There are the Destiny cards, that have an event AND a payout. There's the fact that card play determines turn order. You lose Profit for holding too many cards. And if you don't play a card during the appropriate era then you are stuck with it for the rest of the game.

All of this works together to more or less force you to do something with your cards. And because you'll definitely see a few Destiny cards, and probably a few cards with events you don't want to have happen, this in turn encourages conflict over resources in order to get the best possible payout for yourself. Which is good, it keeps the game from getting stagnant.

My one complaint about the game is the theme. It never feels entirely realistic. In particular, some of the technologies and breakthroughs feel a little odd ("Let's see. I guess I should research Circus since I need it to get to Professional Sports…") or lacking a close connection to their effects. ("Of course Storytelling lets me discard a card each turn!") But this is a minor quibble. Overall the theme is strong enough to keep me involved in the game, for all that there's an occasional "What the?" moment. And the game play itself is excellent.

John, excellent review. Many thanks. I had already ordered the game, based on the mechanics shared with AoR, but while waiting for it to arrive, you've eliminated any misgivings I may have had before seeing it.

vynd (#461586),

I believe your description of the game to be very spot on the mark. While it is a good game in some ways it has some major problems with theme.

First, the name of your 'researchers" is pioneers. We expected pioneers to be explorers, but they are really scientists of one sort or another.

The game has some other MAJOR weaknesses. It's title and publisher would lead players to believe that they are getting into a game which will be a card-driven wargame set during the 19th century. Instead, they get a game a EURO with cards that don't drive the game, they just add to it. In fact, players might even be able to play the game WITHOUT the cards, they add so little to the game.

I'll note, for the record, that I had some misconceptions about what the game was going to be and was excited about it for all the wrong reasons. This game is NOT about "Manifest Destiny" at all. It is a game of building and researching and could have taken place on any continent REAL or IMAGINARY! It is not about whether the Americans would control North America, but about who can build steamships, telegraphs, telephones and computers.


If you are looking for a game that is a cross between Civilization: The Boardgame and History of the World, this might be your cup of tea. If you were expecting another great card-driven wargame from GMT, you might be disappointed. If you can play either, you can expect a fairly good game.

One more caveat before I quit. This game has the WORST rules I have ever read in my life and all eight players who played on Saturday agreed. The major problem is the author seeks to tell you a rule and then all of the exceptions based on cards that MIGHT be in effect. The rules would have done better to have a listing of cards at the end and how they apply to the basic rules.


David "the preacher" Wilson
Wishing someone would put out a game based on "Manifest Destiny" with a touch of reality in it.

abimilech wrote:
vynd (#461586),

I believe your description of the game to be very spot on the mark. While it is a good game in some ways it has some major problems with theme.

First, the name of your 'researchers" is pioneers. We expected pioneers to be explorers, but they are really scientists of one sort or another.


I think that "Pioneers" is a actually a good catch-all term these guys, rather than scientists. Some of the breakthroughs are scientific in nature, yes. But others, like Rock and Roll or Turnpike, bring to mind artists or explorers.


The game has some other MAJOR weaknesses. It's title and publisher would lead players to believe that they are getting into a game which will be a card-driven wargame set during the 19th century. Instead, they get a game a EURO with cards that don't drive the game, they just add to it. In fact, players might even be able to play the game WITHOUT the cards, they add so little to the game.

I'll note, for the record, that I had some misconceptions about what the game was going to be and was excited about it for all the wrong reasons. This game is NOT about "Manifest Destiny" at all. It is a game of building and researching and could have taken place on any continent REAL or IMAGINARY! It is not about whether the Americans would control North America, but about who can build steamships, telegraphs, telephones and computers.


David has a good point. The game is about building and researching. It is not a realistic simulation of the settlement of North America and/or the development of American business. The same game mechanics could probably have been used if they had set the game in a different time and place (like... I dunno, the Renaissance maybe); there's nothing about it that makes it uniquely tied to American history. I do think that the cards have a major impact on play. But they don't dictate every single move like they do in GMT wargames such as The Napoelonic Wars or Paths of Glory. So if you want that sort of game, you should look elsewhere.

However, I haven't seen GMT or anyone else trying to pass Manifest Destiny off as a wargame. The description of the game here on BGG, for example, highlights its Euro-inspired game system and its similarities to Age of Renaissance, which a little research shows is not a wargame but rather a game of building and research, with some conflict. And the rules that BGG links to have apparently been online for over a year, and give a clear indication what sort of game this is.

In fact, players might even be able to play the game WITHOUT the cards, they add so little to the game.


Um, ok, exactly how do you play without the cards? Without them you have no payouts, no events, almost nothing. There's little point to expanding around the country without the cards outside of the relatively minor profit payouts each turn. If your cards in hand aren't driving your choices, then you're missing 80% of the strategy of the game.

As for the rules, they're a hell of a lot simpler than AoR . If it's the worst rule set you've ever seen, it's hard to imagine you've played anything with much complexity. The rules aren't work of art, but they're pretty clear. Manifest Destiny (and AoR) are largely rules with various exceptions as you research new tech. That's part of many games with a research angle, the rules and then the ways research changes those rules.

It's fine if you don't like the way the game plays or the theme. But it's entirely misleading to state the cards aren't important. The cards weren't, strictly speaking, required for AoR either, but anyone that's played it can tell you there's no point to the game without them.

ckessel (#462965),

there is a phase when you are paid based on your "profit level".,. the payouts were some sort of bonus and since players were loathe to give others a bonus based on the territory that they held, so they rarely played a card offering a payout, or chose to use the "or" option when possible.

the cards ONLY do the following things:

1) Decide who gets to choose first for the turn order (based on the highest card played)

2) Grant combat bonuses or discounts for individual or ALL players

3) Force a player to give up a province or area.

The game is not really card-driven, though the cards do have SOME impact on the game, but could be ignored and it be almost the same game.


I don't mean to be misleading, in our game, the cards did play a part... but a less than important part.

My problem with the rules is that the rules would say a player could or could not do something and then list cards which were exceptions. I felt the rules would have been better organized if the exceptions were listed in the back of the rulebook or the reference book and referenced after the rules.

In regards to complex rules, I wasn;'t complaining about the complexity, just the lack of organization.

David "the preacher" Wilson

abimilech wrote:
ckessel (#462965),

there is a phase when you are paid based on your "profit level".,. the payouts were some sort of bonus and since players were loathe to give others a bonus based on the territory that they held, so they rarely played a card offering a payout, or chose to use the "or" option when possible.


I agree with ckessel that if you're ignoring or minimizing the payout aspect of the game then you're missing out on most of the game's strategy. Yes, you will get money based on your Profit each turn. But so will everyone else, and the amounts everyone gets are liable to be relatively close. Whereas payouts have the potential to benefit you much more than they do anyone else. But they'll only fulfill that potential if you pay attention to what payout cards you have and make a concerted effort to get the territories that produce that resource.


the cards ONLY do the following things:

1) Decide who gets to choose first for the turn order (based on the highest card played)

2) Grant combat bonuses or discounts for individual or ALL players

3) Force a player to give up a province or area.

The game is not really card-driven, though the cards do have SOME impact on the game, but could be ignored and it be almost the same game.


The event aspects of the cards can do a lot of things besides what David has listed here, such as:

* allowing you to take control of distant areas,
* destroying cities of your choice,
* causing players of your choice to lose money,
* giving you a free pioneer,
* causing all players to lose or gain money based on their positions on the scoring track
* causing players who are present in a particular region to gain or lose money
* stealing a card from another players hand
* placing new resources on the map
* advancing your research towards a breakthrough


Even if the events like these were the only thing cards are good for, they would still have a huge impact on play. But of course the cards also cause the very important payouts. And they determine the turn order, which in turn influences almost everything else you can do in the game.

So to claim that the cards are somehow not important to Manifest Destiny sinply isn't true. They are a critical aspect of the game, and have an important effect on just about everything the players can do. In my opinion, "playing" while largely ignoring the effects of the cards and the possibilities they offer is not really playing the game at all.

abimilech (#462786),

You say

The game has some other MAJOR weaknesses. It's title and publisher would lead players to believe that they are getting into a game which will be a card-driven wargame set during the 19th century. Instead, they get a game a EURO with cards that don't drive the game, they just add to it. In fact, players might even be able to play the game WITHOUT the cards, they add so little to the game.

If you want to be picky about it, you could also play Paths of Glory without using the cards (just keep taking 1 Ops.) It's not a game you'd want to play, but you could do it. I believe it's similar for Manifest Destiny.

vynd (#462915),

If the game didn't use the title "Manifest Destiny" to create the percetption that the pioneers were to be Lewis and Clark or Daniel Boone types rather than researchers or innovators then the term pioneer would have worked better for me. After all, I do consider Thomas Edison a "pioneer" in the creation of electronics.

But the game further creates the confusion about whether it is an exploration or building game by making the pioneer marker spots on the player aid cards resemble frontiersmen.

as a game, the game is fine, but the confused theme put me off a bit. I'm not saying I did not enjoy the game, I just wanted more connection with real history than the game provided and less confusion about the game's purpose.

vynd (#463804),

You took the time to point out some of the events I failed to mention. The events can be powerful, there's no arguing that. The game would be completely different without the cards, I'll even grant you that.

However, to say that this game is "card-driven" is only slightly more realistic as saying Monopoly is a card-driven game because of power the chance and community chest cards. I mean, c'mon, have you ever got the card that forced you back three spaces onto Boardwalk with a hotel at the crucial moment.

The fact that the cards "ADD" to the game does not mean that the game is "card-driven.' The cards are surely more important than I think they are, but I also think they are less important than YOU think they are.


Either way- The game is adequate, but has thematic problems and is not card-driven.
David "the preacher" Wilson

abimilech (#464046),



Apparently the game was originally called "Progress and Destiny", but was later changed to the current title (for marketing reasons and to drum up more pre-orders so it could get published?). Maybe the original title would have been a better fit. I personally think of the term "Manifest Destiny" as referring to the 19th century, but the game goes through the 20th century as well.

Dudd (#464809),

Manifest Destiny was the name of a doctrine that began to be popularized in the early 1800's. The doctrine stated that it was divinely apointed that the United States would expand and take over the North American Continent from Sea to shining sea. This doctrine led to the war with Mexioc to take California.

This TITLE, therefore, led myself and other gamers to believe that they would be seeing a WARGAME. The billing of the game as CARD-DRIVEN suggested to some that they were getting something along the lines of Napoleonic Wars only set in the United States.

GMT is partially to blame for the confusion. While the conflict DOES take place on the North American continent (mainly)-- they billed it as card-driven and named it as you stated, for marketing purposes.

Once again, it isn't a bad game. (I don't think it is great either) Though the website described the game honestly, some customers got the wrong impression.

In regards to gameplay, the game is adequate and I think enjoyable. Thematicly, the game sucks because it has
NO connection to history.

abimilech (#464860),



At the same time they also posted links to the developers website that contained rules and versions of other components that revealed the true nature of the game. If you came accross the box in a store, the look at the back of the box would also dispell any illusions that this was a wargame.

David, while it's pretty obvious you were looking for one thing and got another (and I think most of us have felt that way about one game or another, at various times), I think the shortcomings seen in this game are overstated.

It didn't take me long to conclude that this game might have been pushed out the door a bit too quickly. First of all, there are the components. My guess is GMT got stuck with a big order of the wood pieces we see in the game, prior to actually using them in playing the game - or at least prior to letting someone unbiased use them in playing. Second, the term "pioneer" is misleading for most, and this is exacerbated by the graphic on the player mat. Third, did somebody not realize the player mats should be numbered, before they went to the printer? Fourth, the black-and-white, uninspired stickers that one must apply to various components just undermine the choice to use wood pieces.

And I'm not happy they settled for "circus" - that seems so...lame.

But I will say this - the rules are pretty good. When reading them to understand the game, I don't usually pay a lot of attention to the exceptions, and in these rules it's pretty obvious what is an exception. This is better than a lot of rulebooks.

And it's a pretty darn good game, too. No, it isn't Richard Berg's Conquistador shoved 250 years forward. But it isn't really anymore abstract than SPI's After the Holocaust, for instance, yet is at least as realistic as that, if not more so. (Complexity and tedium do not, in my book, automatically equate with "realism".)

And if you leave the cards out, you're removing most of the historicity - most of the flavor of the game.

I think my group is going to want to play this game repeatedly, and while I'm not satisfied with some of the game component choices made, I am satisfied that I got an enjoyable, playable game.

For my money, the game is definitely worth what I spent.

AllenDoum (#465175),

Hey Allen, I take some blame for not observing carefully what the game was. However, at the recent Convention, I looked at some of the cards, the map, etc. and was still fairly convinced we had a card-driven" wargame. I guess I was just seeing what I wanted to see, and I will accept the blame.

I'm not claiming that some sort of "fraud" or "dishonest" marketing was involved. The game is misrepresented as a Card-driven game. The game is not card-driven or even historical. The cards augment the game and it would be a totally different game without them. I even consider them necessary, if only marginally so.

Still, I don't think it is a bad game at all. I admit my own preconceptions color my opinion, but I feel that the game was mis-marketed as a Card-Driven game, making most folks (including our friend Mark K) assume that the game would be along the line of Napoleonic Wars with some technological building. Our mistake. We aren't the first gamers to look at a game box, advertising, etc. and see a totatlly different game than packaged.

Since I enjoy games like History of the World, and Eagle Games "Attack" (using the expansion and advanced rules) I did enjoy Manifest Destiny. I just don't want anybody else to make the same foolish mistake that Mark and I did about what the game actually is.

The game is a techno race. Players get victory points for technological advancement. A cash reward is given to players who advance the amount of territory they hold. The cards augment the game, but they don't drive it.

Did I enjoy our experience with the game. I'd rate it at about 7 on a scale of 1-10. Fun, I would play it again, I would enjoy it more the next time. Did I find the components cheap? yup! Do I find the theme distracting? Yup!

David "the preacher" Wilson

AllenDoum (#465175),

Hey Allen, I take some blame for not observing carefully what the game was. However, at the recent Convention, I looked at some of the cards, the map, etc. and was still fairly convinced we had a card-driven" wargame. I guess I was just seeing what I wanted to see, and I will accept the blame.

I'm not claiming that some sort of "fraud" or "dishonest" marketing was involved. The game is misrepresented as a Card-driven game. The game is not card-driven or even historical. The cards augment the game and it would be a totally different game without them. I even consider them necessary, if only marginally so.

Still, I don't think it is a bad game at all. I admit my own preconceptions color my opinion, but I feel that the game was mis-marketed as a Card-Driven game, making most folks (including our friend Mark K) assume that the game would be along the line of Napoleonic Wars with some technological building. Our mistake. We aren't the first gamers to look at a game box, advertising, etc. and see a totatlly different game than packaged.

Since I enjoy games like History of the World, and Eagle Games "Attack" (using the expansion and advanced rules) I did enjoy Manifest Destiny. I just don't want anybody else to make the same foolish mistake that Mark and I did about what the game actually is.

The game is a techno race. Players get victory points for technological advancement. A cash reward is given to players who advance the amount of territory they hold. The cards augment the game, but they don't drive it.

Did I enjoy our experience with the game. I'd rate it at about 7 on a scale of 1-10. Fun, I would play it again, I would enjoy it more the next time. Did I find the components cheap? yup! Do I find the theme distracting? Yup!

David "the preacher" Wilson

DarrellKH (#465521),


I think it is quite obvious that David didn't bother to read any of the material on the game from GMT and elsewhere. It seemed obvious the game is:
- based on Age of Ren (and plays quite similarly to it.)
- never calls it a wargame
- It is a game of economic development (words like "markets", "payouts", "mercantile empire", "cash", "breakthrough", "progression" and "products" are sprinked on the webpage and the quarterly newletter in descriptions of this game.)

David appears to have assumed since it was produced by GMT, it must be a wargame. And we know what happens when you assume....



Look up what "pioneer" means:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pioneer
Particularly, definition number 2.

Seems like a good description of its function to me.



I am sure they DID realize this.

I am sure they also realized that is cheaper to produce 5 identical charts and use stickers to differentiate them than to print 5 different mats where the only change is a single number.



I wasn't happy with the plain black & white stickers either. I made some colored stickers for the blocks (and a player aid sheet.) I have submitted the artwork to the 'geek, but they have not been put online yet.



Circuses seem quaint today, but they were the only form of entertainment most people had in the 19th Century America. The circus coming to town by wagon (or later train) was a huge event. About the only entertainment figure from pre-Civil War America that most people know of today is P.T. Barnum.

Since it is the first space of the Leisure Track, Circus is as good as a anything else to describe early 19th Century American leisure.

rri1 (#465926),

Hey! I took what I believe is my share of the blame for making an ass of myself and making an assumption that a game produced by a wargame company, with a warhawk slogan used historically by warhawks, would be a wargame. don't blame me because I enjoy studying American history. I agree I did not read the material on the game. My main issue is that the game is billed as carddriven, when instead it HAS a card mechanic. I never accused GMT of dishonest marketing, just confusing marketing. Sort of like the Coca Cola people forgetting to tell people that the "new coke" was just a blatant copy of the "old pepsi." I stand by my bold (and perhaps foolish) assertion that the game is NOT driven by the cards.



In regards to the cheap stickers with the letters in black and white, this was just poor planning on their part. I'm looking forward to seeing the player aid stickers.


In regards to pioneers, I would agree that the phrase certainly can enocompass more than the Davy Crockett/Daniel Boone type mode, but look at the picture on the player aid. A guy in that mode exactly is the place we are to place the "researchers". Would that alone be enough to put me off of the game? No, as I said, the game isn't really a bad game, in fact, in some ways it works very well.

I think the positioning of the Canadian player and the Pennsylvania player ought to have been a bit further apart to provide balance.

I also dislike the title of the "circus" progression, but hey, if you are going to jump ship on the theme anyway, what the heck? The circus did indeed fill the niche that you speak of, it is just hard to think of a circus having a major impact on society as it seems to have on the game. And I still don't understand how having a major league sports team should provide combat bonus, unless of course we're talking about the way the Angels seem to BEAT UP on the Dodgers every year in the freeway series. (DUCKING) Hey, with a nickname like the preacher, you don't think I would be rooting for the "devil rays" or something do you?

David "the preacher" Wilson

Well it depends what you mean by card-driven and this too may have caused some misconceptions but in my view the cards have a serious impact on the strategy that you adopt and as a lot of decisions you make (including starting bids and positions) will be based on the cards in your hand then I don't think that calling it "card-driven" is misleading.

The suggestion earlier in the thread was that payouts were unimportant. I would say that if you ignore payouts throughout the game whilst the other players base their placements/conflicts on the cards in their hand for which they have payouts then you will almost certainly lose. A good example of where the cards will drive how you play the game.

100%Blade (#466906),

In our game, we saw each player play only 1 card or so per turn, at least until late in the game.

Payouts certainly help.. but the game is not card-driven any more than monopoly. A person can "play" monopoly without paying attention to the cards (meaning deeds) but obviously they will miss an important part of the game. However, monopoly is dice driven, not card-driven. the dice decide where you go, who goes first, etc. Every part of the game surrounds that all important roll of the dice.

While the cards provide a push, players COULD play the entire game WITHOUT the cards. It would have the same effect as ignoring the cards in monopoly.

The gameplay is augmented by cards, not driven. Of course, that is just my opinion. the cards do not decide what a player can do, they just provide bonuses for doing so.

David "the preacher" Wilson




M.D. is neither dice nor card driven, but th

abimilech (#467944),
The cards may not drive what a player can do but the point is I think they go a long way to driving what a player should do. Thus the cards drive the strategy rather than the mechanics. Just different use of the terminology but I maintain that GMT have not misrepresented the game in any way. The cards are an integral part of the game. To play without them is to devalue the experience.
Michael

abimilech wrote:
Hey! I took what I believe is my share of the blame for making an ass of myself and making an assumption that a game produced by a wargame company, with a warhawk slogan used historically by warhawks, would be a wargame. don't blame me because I enjoy studying American history.

No, I think we're blaming you for ranting on and on about your own misconceptions. If you were upset because someone else did something to you, I would understand it. But to be upset because of your own mistake and then to go on and on and on about it seems awfully silly.

DaviddesJ (#469471),

Actually, I'm not ranting about my own misconceptions, but rather the poor marketing which led the the misconceptions. My fault for not reading further. I saw the game, reviewed the cards, and the map at a local convention. I did not read the rules at that point.

The very title, Manifest Destiny,is confusing, because it has its roots it Western Expansionism. It was coined by the warhawks of Congress during that period, those who were willing to fight so that the United States could extend across the continent "from sea to shining sea."

It is my opinion that the game should have been called "Age of Industry" or something similar. The game is NOT EVEN ABOUT MANIFEST DESTINY, but rather INDUSTRIALIZATION. Combat is necessary to increase profits (maybe not as much depending on card payouts) but not to win the game.

In other words, I think GMT "goofed" with the title and describing the game as card-driven. Both helped mislead a number of players that I know, as well as myself.

If I was the only moron who was confused about the game, I would take all the blame, as it is I am only willing to take SOME of the blame.

Once again, the game is a fairly decent game, once you understand what it is, but folks looking for a GMT card-driven style game are going to be disappointed, because it isn't like their other products.



The game's saving grace is that there is combat, such as it is, but there are no units, leaders, etc. Only "token" forces. Very, very abstract.

They chose a name that doesn't fit the game so well. That justifies a one-sentence comment at most, not page after page of ranting.

DaviddesJ (#470293),

Hmmm... not certain what you consider to be a rant. I'm certainly not violently angry about the name of the game. Feel free to ignore my posts if I annoy you.

At our game club today, another group of veteran gamers attempted to conquer this game. They managed to play it, but once again, a number of them were put off by the non-historical elements of the game. Apparently the rules were a challenge, even to those who had read them in advance and thought they knew how the game played.

Other complaints centered on the placement of the starting position of Canada and Pennsylvania in such a way that they almost have to initiate combat EARLY in the game.

They played the entire game, but I heard two of the players remark that they didn't plan to play it again.