by aldaryn
You may have heard of a board game called Twilight Struggle. Word on the street is that it’s the best board game in the history of the universe. Therefore, when Twilight Struggle co-designer Jason Matthews found another partner in crime (Christian Leonhard) to make 1960: the Making of a President, people paid attention and sang its praises as a shorter, sleeker Twilight Struggle. But when Jason and Christian trimmed the game even further and tackled the 2008 election, reception was not as positive. More than anything, I think it has to do with the state of politics today – I took this game to the office to play with a politically-minded buddy, and was met with several stares and a lot of laughter. People don’t know what to say when they see Sarah Palin in a board game. So the theme is strange, but how’s the game? Here’s a reminder of my scoring categories:Components – Does the game look nice? Are the bits worth the money? Do they add to the game?
Accessibility – How easy is the game to teach, or to feel like you know what you are doing?
Depth – Does the gameplay allow for deeper strategies, or does the game play itself?
Theme – Does the game give a sense of immersion? Can you imagine the setting described in the game?
Fun – Is the game actually enjoyable? Do you find yourself smiling, laughing, or having some sense of satisfaction when it’s over?
Components: Campaign Manager 2008 isn’t a sprawling monster with a ton of components, but it has its fair share and they’re well-built, functional, and sturdy. The cornerstones of the gameplay are the 20 battleground state tiles – made of thick cardboard, these keep track of who’s winning each state as well as their majority issue and key demographic. These are fought over via separate card decks for each candidate, which are also a strong, quality card stock, but a little difficult to shuffle. The most unique component is the score track – there is sort of a “meter” showing who’s ahead in the race, and when you win a state, you take a corresponding strip of cardboard and place it on the meter, and the first player to fill the meter (i.e. get 270 electoral votes) wins. It’s an interesting visual representation, but a bit fiddly and easy to bump out of place. Furthermore, I always have to recount using the state tiles when I think I’ve won, because it’s a little hard to tell in some scenarios. The rest of the components consist of a small “Breaking News” event deck, a variety of simple wooden markers to place on the state tiles, a “Going Negative” chart, and a die. The state tiles have started to show a little wear around the edges after about ten plays, but overall, the components are quality and easy to use apart from the score track. Furthermore, it’s a lot of game for $30 MSRP.
Accessibility: Campaign Manager 2008‘s system is simple and intuitive, in part because it so well evokes the idea of an actual election. All you do on your turn is play a card and resolve its effect, or draw a card. Most card effects involve trying to gain support in an issue (either defense or economy) in a particular state – you win a state when you have all the support in its majority issue. Therefore other cards attempt to shift which issue is the majority, and some cards and effects allow you to alter the key demographic in a state so that you can play cards that turn all undecided voters of a key demographic your way. It all makes sense within the theme and it’s all quite simple, thanks to some really smart design decisions. Only four states are ever in play at once, so you won’t feel overwhelmed by the possibilities like you might when staring at a full board of the USA in 1960 or the entire world in Twilight Struggle. None of the card effects are too over-the-top, and many are redundant, which makes the game that much simpler to play. I was able to teach the game to a new player and get going within maybe five minutes.
Depth: Because Campaign Manager 2008 is so streamlined and short (30-60 minutes), players may suspect it lacks depth, especially when you account for some of the extreme effects in the game – die rolls and the event deck can both be very punishing. However, those extreme effects are what keep the game nervous and exciting. Despite the randomness involved in the game, the game is still pretty deep. Although there are some obvious strategies you’ll pick up on after a few games (like bringing in a small, unimportant state when your hand is low), there are some subtle things that can be done as well. The game isn’t long enough for each players’ 15-card deck to feel repetitive, but it is long enough to abuse the small deck size. You learn to anticipate a card that was played before your opponent reshuffled, or to hold back from playing or discarding your worst card until you’ve reshuffled yourself. Once you’ve learned the starter decks, the deck building/drafting pre-game adds a ton of replayability to the game, forcing you to be creative and try new strategies instead of always playing with the best cards. My only complaint is that two of the cards seem too good to skip during the draft (“draw three cards” and “draw two, play one”), but that may just be group-think getting the best of me. The game is a constant back-and-forth, leading to some real nail-biter situations. The luck involved in the game means you have to constantly be on your toes, even when ahead. Most importantly, after every game I’ve been able to say “Oh, if only I had thought to do that, I would have won,” or “Wow, I’m glad I did that! It won me the game!” – and that is one of the truest signs of a great game.
Theme: The theme of this game surely feels strange, but the designers, artists, publisher – everyone did a top-notch job with it. It was brilliant to give the game a tongue-in-cheek look – not too zany, but not too serious, either. The card names really match the history of the election, and each card has a little sticky note adding a little more flavor to the topic at hand on the card. The event cards also really heighten the experience – the cards remind us of the campaign strategies, but the event cards remind us of the big things that happened in the news. Games about World War II and the Cold War have me fascinated about years I never saw, but this is one of the first games where I can look at an event being discussed and say “I remember that!”, which is something new and exciting for me. It was also the first time I really paid attention to a presidential campaign as an adult, and therefore it has the same appeal to me that 1960 would for someone who lived through that era. If you enjoyed the election or are just a fan of politics, the game gives you all the tools to really dive in to the theme, but the mechanics are so refined and enjoyable that you’re also free to ignore the theme or enjoy it “ironically” and still have a great time.
Fun: I enjoy playing games for a lot of reasons, but when I sit down and play a two-player game, it’s usually because I want to drive my opponent into the ground in a tense, exciting match. The gameplay here delivers that kind of play in spades. I have a few political opinions, but I’m generally incompetent in that regard, so the theme wasn’t what inspired me to pick this game up – but I’m glad I did. Although the card names and text sometimes cause me to shake my head or laugh at some of the ridiculous aspects of modern politics, the game system keeps me enthralled the entire time, leaving me wanting to play again immediately.
I think most people that ignored this game did so because of the theme, and it’s a shame, because the game underneath the hood is a fantastic distillation of Twilight Struggle and 1960 into an even shorter playing time. For many of us, it was an interesting point in the history of our generation, and therefore I still find the theme fascinating. If you enjoy two-player games with tight, down-to-the-wire competition, this is a game worth considering, regardless of your political affiliation.