I won as non-aligned but didn't enjoy it particularly. Much more fun as NATO. There is some weirdness in the game. I'll pick one - (We played it incorrectly) but if you take out the piece in the USA it can't be rebuilt by the NATO player as a Home Territory. It has to link back to another supply source. We assumed you could and my opponent built back in there.
The scenario in this game looks more like the world of Nineteen Eighty Four (a roughly World-War-Two-like conflict between three blocs) than the Cold War (a series of political maneuverings and proxy wars between basically two blocs).
Have to say I really disagree with your review here Marco. Usually I trust your opinions so I got the game partially on the back of that. But the many espionage cards are a weakly designed mechanic. They're all one-shot and specific. Almost everything you do in the game is just decided by what a card tells you to do. At least in 1914, you can plan ahead with the prepared cards to fight over strategic areas, and there are tough choices on when best to reveal and use them. Here, much less freedom of choice. And since every army is worth a point, often you just spam armies and it doesn't matter so much where. For me this game epitomises lazy design, just put together a deck of cards that tell players what to do and you have a game. The WMDs are also mostly boring, just targeting a player to substract VP from them.
Great game - great video !
Thank you - putting it on my wishlist :)
Is this now your favourite game in the series? How does it compare to 1914 or VoD?
I would love for you to cover QMG 1918, and compare to regular QMG
I would love a review on the entire series.
I won as non-aligned but didn't enjoy it particularly. Much more fun as NATO. There is some weirdness in the game. I'll pick one - (We played it incorrectly) but if you take out the piece in the USA it can't be rebuilt by the NATO player as a Home Territory. It has to link back to another supply source. We assumed you could and my opponent built back in there.
The scenario in this game looks more like the world of Nineteen Eighty Four (a roughly World-War-Two-like conflict between three blocs) than the Cold War (a series of political maneuverings and proxy wars between basically two blocs).
It's because Orwell was describing the emerging geopolitical situation at the beginning of the Cold War.
Please , wher can i find a french rules
Jeez that greeny yellowy board not that keen.
how does it play for six?
well, but the players need to know their decks fairly well to be able to coordinate the two decks of each group.
Have to say I really disagree with your review here Marco. Usually I trust your opinions so I got the game partially on the back of that. But the many espionage cards are a weakly designed mechanic. They're all one-shot and specific. Almost everything you do in the game is just decided by what a card tells you to do. At least in 1914, you can plan ahead with the prepared cards to fight over strategic areas, and there are tough choices on when best to reveal and use them. Here, much less freedom of choice. And since every army is worth a point, often you just spam armies and it doesn't matter so much where. For me this game epitomises lazy design, just put together a deck of cards that tell players what to do and you have a game. The WMDs are also mostly boring, just targeting a player to substract VP from them.