Recommend
58 
 Thumb up
 Hide
21 Posts

The Manhattan Project» Forums » Reviews

Subject: GamerChris Review - The Manhattan Project rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Chris Norwood
United States
Graham
North Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Come visit me at GamerChris.com for all sorts of chewy, gamery goodness!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The Manhattan Project


Designer: Brandon Tibbetts (2012)
Publisher: Minion Games
# of Players: 2-5
Play Time: 120 min
Average BGG Rating: 7.22
Category: Gamer's Game

This review originally appeared on GamerChris.com

I heard about The Manhattan Project when it was still in development and then during it's Kickstarter campaign, and while I loved the theme and artwork, I was pretty hesitant to pull the trigger on a heavy worker-placement game from a newish game company without much of a track record for heavier games. Boy, was that a mistake!

Thankfully, Minion Games was nice enough to send me a review copy of The Manhattan Project, and I've been totally blown away by it so far. But before I get into any more detail about all that, let's go over the...

Game Basics (click here for full game rules)

The Manhattan Project is a worker-placement game, but it brings a very different approach to the mechanic, and I haven't really seen anything like it before. The goal of the game (and really, the only way to score points at all) is to develop and build atomic bombs, which is done through placing workers both on the central board and individual buildings (once you build them, anyway) to do all sorts of resource-manage-y things.

Workers actually come in three varieties: Laborers, Engineers, and Scientists. As you might expect, this is because certain spaces and buildings require particular types or combinations of workers to use them. You actually start the game with just 4 Laborers, however, and the other types must be earned through play.


A full complement of workers (plus two scientist contractors)

On any one turn, a player has to decide between either placing workers or retrieving workers.

Place Workers

If a player chooses to place workers on their turn, they may:
1) first place one worker into an unoccupied space on the central board, and then
2) place as many workers as they can (and want to) into their own buildings.

I'm not going to try and describe every single thing that you can do with placing workers, but here is an overview of some of the basic actions that are available as spaces on the board and/or individual buildings:

• Construction - At the top of the central board, there's a sliding market of building cards. Depending on the position of its card (increasing from left to right), each building costs a certain amount of money to construct. So, when you place a worker into the Construction space on the central board (which is always available, even if other workers are already there), you pay for the building card you want and place it onto your own player board. And generally, you're the only person who can use your own buildings.


The Construction Space and Building market
• Universities - Let you recruit more workers into your workforce. Each player has a basic limit of 4 workers of each type in their own color, but there's also a pool of gray "contract" workers that you can recruit to temporarily go above this limit.

• Mines - Give a certain amount of raw uranium ("yellow cake") depending on the number and type of workers required to place on them.

• Enrichment Facilities/Reactors - Let you turn Yellow Cake into Enriched Uranium (Enrichment Facilities, which often also require money) or Yellow Cake/Enriched Uranium into Plutonium (Reactors).

• Factories - Gives you money, fighters, and/or bombers.


A Mine in use on the main board

In addition, there are some other spaces on the central board that do some pretty interesting things:

• Air Strike - When you place a worker here, you launch air strikes against one or more other players. You can use your own fighters to destroy either another player's fighters or bombers. And then, if they don't have any fighters left, you can also spend bombers to deal damage to their buildings, rendering them useless until the damage is repaired (which is another space on the main board).

• Espionage - Choosing this space first advances the player one space on the espionage track (which runs from 1 to 6). Then, during the rest of that turn, they may place workers on a number of available buildings owned by other players equal to their position on the espionage track.

• Design Bombs - A number of bomb cards (1 more than the number of players) are always dealt faceup beside the board. When someone chooses the Design Bomb action, they pick up these cards and choose one to keep. The cards are then passed around the table and every player gets to draft one to keep, with the last card also going to the person who performed the action. These cards are the bombs which players can then construct as a bomb action to score points.


One general rule about placing workers in The Manhattan Project is that you get the effect of that space immediately when you place the worker. If you use a Laborer to construct a building, you can then place another worker in that building right afterwards to get its effect as well. If you use a University to make an Engineer, you can then use the Engineer on the same turn to activate another building. It's pretty cool, and really allows players to think carefully about the order in which they do things to set up chains of effects.

Bomb Actions

After performing a Place Workers turn, the player may also perform any number of Bomb Actions that they want and are able to do. There are actually 3 Bomb Actions:

1) Build Bombs - Much like a building card, every bomb card requires both a certain combination of Engineers and/or Scientists and the expenditure of some amount of either Enriched Uranium or Plutonium. By spending/allocating these resources, the player can build the bomb, placing it down on the table, where it is worth the victory points listed on it.

2) Test Bombs - Uranium and Plutonium bombs are actually a little different, though. Plutonium bombs are more complicated, so they have two VP values listed on them (rather than the singe VP value on Uranium bombs). At baseline, they are worth the lower value of points, but once during the game, a player can choose to discard one of his constructed Plutonium bombs to perform an Implosion Test. The test itself is usually worth some points (0-8), but the big advantage is that every other Plutonium bomb they construct for the rest of the game is worth its larger VP value instead.

3) Load Bombs - Every bomb also has a "load" cost on it. If you pay this amount of money and use up a bomber, you can make the bomb worth an additional 5 points.


Retrieve Workers

At some point, either because you run out of workers or because you want to pull off some timing shenanigans, you will have to Retrieve Workers on your turn. It's pretty simple and quick, but there are 3 little phases to make sure that you clear all the correct spots:

1) Pull back all of your permanent workers
2) Clear workers off all your buildings
3) Clear all Contractors from the main board and your personal supply

Game End

The game continues until one player builds enough bombs and/or loads them to score the indicated number of points based on the number of players (70 points for 2, 60 for 3, 50 for 4, or 45 for 5).

What I Think...

Okay, first of all, The Manhattan Project looks freaking amazing. The whole retro/50's propaganda art design is both attractive and functional, and all of the component decisions seem to be really smart. In most worker-placement games, the "workers" themselves are some sort of wooden pawn, but here, the decision to use incredibly think (4mm) cardboard tokens identifying the 3 different types of workers was just brilliant. The use of half-size cards (which I usually abhor) was actually pretty appropriate here, and once again the art and iconography used on them and the central board is truly excellent.

And the really cool thing is that looking at the game mechanically, I'm just as impressed.

Perpetual-Motion, Worker-Placement Madness!

The whole place vs. retrieve workers decision is just brilliant. Giving players the choice of when to effectively "pass" and pull back their workers sets up all sorts of cool choices. I mean, most obviously, there is a desire to be as efficient as you can with your workers and to make as few retrieve turns as you can. But especially if you're trying to be in a position to take advantage of someone else pulling off, you might just pull back early to make sure that you have the workers you'd need. The other side of that is, of course, trying not to set up the next player to get too much advantage from you pulling up.

The hallmark player interaction in most worker-placement games is the ability to take a spot that someone else wants and effectively block it out for the round or whatever. The Manhattan Project certainly has that, but with its crazy perpetual-motion/indefinite rounds structure, there is a whole other level of timing and planning and anticipation/bluffing involved in how and when you use or pull back your workers.


Fighters and Bombers and Spies, O My!

Speaking of player interaction, the biggest way that The Manhattan Project turns the whole worker-placement/eurogame-engine-building convention on its head is the inclusion of two very direct and in-yer-face conflict mechanics.

First is the Air Strike action, which lets you take out other players' fighters and bombers as well as dealing damage to their buildings (thereby taking them out of commission until they're repaired). Whether you make small, surgical strikes that are more about disrupting a player for a turn or two, or if multiple players all gang up on a leader to bomb him into the stone age, there is a huge range of options to use this to your advantage.

In my games so far, however, I haven't actually seen all that much widespread use of Air Strikes. Whether it's just my group's play style/preference, or if it's more because we were all being careful to not open ourselves up to attack as well (which could easily happen if you use your fighters up on the offensive), it never seemed to be all that great an idea to go all gung-ho with a big military action. But both as a threat and as an option for limited use to delay/disrupt a leader's engine, it's a really entertaining mechanic to have available. Plus, the "cold war" atmosphere of having lots of unused armament around just adds to the theme!


I've been bombed!

The Espionage action, however, is a whole different story. In my experience, planning around being able to jump into and take full advantage of this space (and often, the buildings of the person who just pulled up) is one of the most significant factors influencing the play of the game. If you can pull up when the other players only have a worker or two available, though, you can minimize the damage to you and ensure that the space will open up again (hopefully for you) sooner than later. There's even some pretty cool shenanigans that you can pull off by using Contractors on another player's board, which won't get pulled off until they retrieve workers, even if you pull up before then.

From a big-picture perspective, I could definitely see that some traditional eurogame enthusiasts might not like all the direct conflict options in The Manhattan Project. But if your group as a whole just isn't into that sort of thing, there's nothing forcing you to engage with those mechanics. Just like with my group, where the threat of the airstrike is used a lot more than the actual action itself, most groups will be able to play the game to their taste of interaction. Because even without the direct-conflict elements, the game is still very compelling just as a worker-placement and engine-building experience.


Single-Minded Pursuit!

The Manhattan Project is all about building nuclear bombs. There is literally no other way to score points other than building, testing, and loading bombs. Usually, my preference is for games that allow players to choose between a variety of different yet viable paths to achieve victory. But here, I don't seem to really mind the limited focus of the game. Mostly, I think it's because while you're all sort of heading to the same end point, there still are some real choices about how exactly you'll get there.

At its heart, The Manhattan Project is really an engine-building game. So in addition to all the tactical timing decisions you make from turn to turn, there's also a lot of strategic choices related to which buildings you'll construct, which of the two secondary resources (Enriched Uranium or Plutonium) you'll focus on, how much you'll engage with the Espionage/military elements, and how you then put all these elements together to make the whole thing hum.

Two Different Games?

Okay, so The Manhattan Project is about placing workers and building a bomb-making engine. What happens in play, though, is that this sort of drives the game to have two pretty distinct phases. In the first "half" of the game, it looks a lot like most other worker-placement games, where the main focus is on choosing which space to use on the main board and most interaction is related to blocking out spots that other people need or finding the quickest way to build up your workforce. Players usually try to delay taking a Retrieve Workers turn as much as they can, doing so only every 5 or 6 turns.

Later in the game, however, once players have constructed most of the buildings they need to run their engine, you want to get in as many cycles of running it as you can. To maximize the effect, you then get into a pattern of Placing and Retrieving workers every other turn or so. At this point, interaction becomes more about finding ways to disrupt the engine of the player (or players) who seems to be doing the best. So obviously, the direct-conflict elements (Air Strikes and Espionage) really come into their own in this phase.

I've actually put a decent amount of thought and analysis into whether this phase shift facet of the game is a good thing or not, because I could see how it could feel a little disjointed or bait-and-switch-ey to some. In the end, though, I've really come to like how it adds more of a dramatic arc to the game that sort of mirrors real life. It's also very similar to games like Puerto Rico or Acquire where you have to shift gears at one point in the game, and doing well often comes down to gaugeing when is the right time to make the transition.

Paralyzed?

One complaint I've heard about The Manhattan Project is that it's very prone to analysis paralysis, which can lead to loads of downtime and very lengthy games. I've personally never experienced this, however, and I actually think that the structure of the game discourages it to some point. Early on, turns are very short because you basically only have one or two things to do (placing a worker on the board and maybe a building on your personal board). There can certainly be thought put into this, but you also have time to think about your next potential moves while play moves around the table.

The bigger issue I've heard is that the game can really slow down later on once players have constructed lots of buildings and have lots more options. But to me, if you're doing it right and purchased buildings strategically to build some sort of cohesive engine, placing your workers near the end of the game should be pretty much automatic. You have more options, but you should already know how you planned to use those options from the get-go.

People who overanalyze things will certainly have lots of fuel to fire their analysis paralysis with The Manhattan Project. But once they have a play or two under their belt, people investing a reasonable measure of thought into their moves shouldn't really have any real issue.

Too Short?

In fact, this leads me to my only real complaint with the game as published: it's just too darn short with 4 or 5 players! As I mentioned above, the target number of points scales with the number of players. At 50 or less points (again, 4 or 5 players), this basically amounts to building just two bombs. And since you usually manage to accumulate enough materials to build one smaller bomb in the first phase of the game, you then only have the chance to run your engine a couple of revolutions before someone builds their second one and the game is over. Plus, since the direct-conflict elements don't really become as important until the second phase of the game, you often just don't have the time to use them effectively either.

Obviously, the designer/developer's decision to scale the points was mostly a matter of keeping play time under control. But in my group anyway, we've pretty consistently played The Mahattan Project in 90 minutes or less (actual average is 84 minutes). I'm also aware that we're a pretty fast-playing group in general, so other groups may have notably longer plays. But as far as I'm concerned, my intention from here on is that I will play to at least 60 points regardless of the number of players, since that seems to be the threshold where you have to at least get that third bomb into play.


Winning a 3-player game with 67 points...

The Verdict!
I guess it's rather obvious, but I think that The Manhattan Project is a pretty incredible game. In addition to looking great and bringing some real innovation to the worker-placement genre, it is one of the absolute best euro/American-style hybrids that I've ever seen. So far, it's definitely one of my favorite games of 2012, and I really hope to play it a lot more in the future.

Rules: There are some complex elements, but I've found it incredibly easy to teach and get people into.
• Theme: Unique theme that's supported well artistically and which both informs play and can actually teach you something about the subject matter
• Downtime: Very little early on, but it can get a little longer later in the game when players have more buildings.
• Player Interaction: A lot, both indirect (worker placement) and direct (Airstrikes and Espionage)
• Length: 84 minutes is my average, which actually feels a bit too short sometimes
GamerChris' Rating: 9 (on the BGG 10-point scale)


For more reviews, reports, and discussion about modern boardgames, check out my blog at GamerChris.com
39 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Norwood
United States
Graham
North Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Come visit me at GamerChris.com for all sorts of chewy, gamery goodness!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dang, I hit the Submit button by accident. Let me finish up the formatting real quick...

Ah, much better!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tony Kotler
United States
Miami
Florida
flag msg tools
I Love Heavy Dry Soulless Euros!!!
badge
When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That's my religion.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Great review! I also found that 50 points with four players had an unexpected ending. I agree that the points should be a little higher.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Tom
United States
Plainfield
ILLINOIS
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yeah...I really like the ultra thick player chits...very cool how Ludofact can make a meeple substitute that has a lot of detail and can be customized.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sam Carroll
United States
Urbana
Illinois
flag msg tools
Soli Deo Gloria!
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
kilroy-locke wrote:
Okay, so The Manhattan Project is about placing workers and building a bomb-making engine. What happens in play, though, is that this sort of drives the game to have two pretty distinct phases.


I haven't seen "two distinct phases" in my games. Certainly there's a shift from engine-building to churning, but it hasn't been nearly as clear-cut as you seem to have found; more of a gradual thing. For example, moving up the espionage track takes time; if you're going to be strong in espionage, you need to be investing in it as soon as someone clears their workers for the first time. As the game goes on, your espionage action will become more and more powerful.

Quote:
Later in the game, however, once players have constructed most of the buildings they need to run their engine, you want to get in as many cycles of running it as you can. To maximize the effect, you then get into a pattern of Placing and Retrieving workers every other turn or so. At this point, interaction becomes more about finding ways to disrupt the engine of the player (or players) who seems to be doing the best. So obviously, the direct-conflict elements (Air Strikes and Espionage) really come into their own in this phase.


You'll certainly see Espionage being very strong if you're clearing workers every other turn; a predictable cycle like this is easy to exploit. I feel like it's often worth delaying your "clear workers" action by a turn to avoid getting hit with espionage. But your mileage may vary.

EDIT: I should also say: thanks for a solid review, Chris!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Derbyshire
United Kingdom
Norton Mandeville
Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for the review. It's definitley on my radar now!

I LOVE worker placement games. Presumably I NEED this in my collection??
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paulo Santoro
Brazil
São Paulo
São Paulo
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
I've played only 2 times (both with 4 players), but I also felt the abrupt ending in 50 points.

I would like to know what Brandon, the designer, thinks about playing to 60 points with 4 players. He can have some concern that we are not aware of.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brandon Tibbetts
United States
Oak Lawn
Illinois
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Chris is absolutely correct in that the variable point goals are all about keeping down the game length (somewhat) as the player count increases.

If game length is not a concern for your group and you'd like to play to a higher point total, I don't think there will be a problem with that. My only concern would be that if the point total is too high then it will be possible for a player to get shut out from winning strictly on the basis of which bomb cards he has pulled from the bomb deck before it runs out.

In a ridiculously extreme situation, say in a 5-player game, a player could in theory get a plutonium bomb, test it for 0 points, then get only 4 more bombs. These could be the 4 lowest scoring uranium bombs for a total of 62 points with all bombs built and loaded (and the bomb design deck empty).

By my rough calculations here are the highest possible point totals, rounded down to the nearest 10, for each player count that would not allow for the shut-out situation:

5 players: 60 (5 bombs: 0+9+10+11+12 / 4 loads: 20)
4 players: 80 (6 bombs: 0+9+10+11+12+13 / 5 loads: 25)
3 players: 90 (7 bombs: 0+9+10+11+12+13+13 / 6 loads: 30)
2 players: 150 (10 bombs: 0+9+10+11+12+13+13+14+14+15 / 9 loads: 45)

Again, these are quick and dirty calculations, so everyone please feel free to check them.
7 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Norwood
United States
Graham
North Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Come visit me at GamerChris.com for all sorts of chewy, gamery goodness!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for the reply, Brandon!

And of course, your theoretical situation couldn't really happen (unless maybe that player never actually choose the Design Bomb action themselves, which would be pretty stupid, and were always last to choose).

So it really just comes down to time.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paulo Santoro
Brazil
São Paulo
São Paulo
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
schmanthony wrote:
Chris is absolutely correct in that the variable point goals are all about keeping down the game length (somewhat) as the player count increases.

If game length is not a concern for your group and you'd like to play to a higher point total, I don't think there will be a problem with that. My only concern would be that if the point total is too high then it will be possible for a player to get shut out from winning strictly on the basis of which bomb cards he has pulled from the bomb deck before it runs out.

In a ridiculously extreme situation, say in a 5-player game, a player could in theory get a plutonium bomb, test it for 0 points, then get only 4 more bombs. These could be the 4 lowest scoring uranium bombs for a total of 62 points with all bombs built and loaded (and the bomb design deck empty).

By my rough calculations here are the highest possible point totals, rounded down to the nearest 10, for each player count that would not allow for the shut-out situation:

5 players: 60 (5 bombs: 0+9+10+11+12 / 4 loads: 20)
4 players: 80 (6 bombs: 0+9+10+11+12+13 / 5 loads: 25)
3 players: 90 (7 bombs: 0+9+10+11+12+13+13 / 6 loads: 30)
2 players: 150 (10 bombs: 0+9+10+11+12+13+13+14+14+15 / 9 loads: 45)

Again, these are quick and dirty calculations, so everyone please feel free to check them.


Brandon, you created a very good game! meeple

In my case, I don't think I would like to challenge the limits! If you see 80 points as the safe max in 4 players, for sure I'm not willing to play for 80 points. But would I play for 60? 65? 70? I don't know. You could define a "gamer's" ending, based in your experience.

But there is one more point. My expansion Nations is not yet with me, so I played 2 times without it. Would you say that the Nations makes the game last more or less time? China, German and Soviet Union seem to speed up (by only reading the effects), while the others probably make the opposite. I mean, my concern is that: if the nations make the game last more time, maybe I will not be willing to change the points after all...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Norwood
United States
Graham
North Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Come visit me at GamerChris.com for all sorts of chewy, gamery goodness!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have the Nations expansion, but haven't actually played with it yet (it seemed like there were new people involved each time I played it, so I didn't want to throw it in yet). But just in reading the Nation powers, I don't see it adding a whole lot more time.

Anyone else have more knowledge about this?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paulo Santoro
Brazil
São Paulo
São Paulo
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
kilroy_locke wrote:
I have the Nations expansion, but haven't actually played with it yet (it seemed like there were new people involved each time I played it, so I didn't want to throw it in yet). But just in reading the Nation powers, I don't see it adding a whole lot more time.

Anyone else have more knowledge about this?


I'm guessing that USA, Britain and Japan can add some time because the fighter and bomber abilities, and France because the ability to discard bombs.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sheldon Smith
United States
Rancho Cucamonga
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
PauloSantoro wrote:


Brandon, you created a very good game! meeple

In my case, I don't think I would like to challenge the limits! If you see 80 points as the safe max in 4 players, for sure I'm not willing to play for 80 points. But would I play for 60? 65? 70? I don't know. You could define a "gamer's" ending, based in your experience.

But there is one more point. My expansion Nations is not yet with me, so I played 2 times without it. Would you say that the Nations makes the game last more or less time? China, German and Soviet Union seem to speed up (by only reading the effects), while the others probably make the opposite. I mean, my concern is that: if the nations make the game last more time, maybe I will not be willing to change the points after all...


I too would like to hear the designer's opinion on this. This game looks quite intriguing. Can't wait to try the new spin on the worker placement mechanic. The timing / bluffing use of when to retrieve workers... or intentionally being "inefficient" at times to have the right available workers ready for when an opponent frees up a spot sounds brilliant! The direct attacking / bombing feature is also unique for a worker placement Euro... making player interaction VERY direct and "in your face". Looking forward to trying this very soon, but loving what I've seen so far.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brandon Tibbetts
United States
Oak Lawn
Illinois
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm fairly confident that the increased target VPs I came up with...

5 players: 60
4 players: 80
3 players: 90
2 players: 150

... will be safe to use. As Chris pointed out, it's incredibly unlikely that the shut-out situation would ever happen anyway if all players are acting reasonably in their own interests. You're just not going to take the smallest bomb from the face-up bomb cards every time, and eventually if you feel like you've been stuck with a lot of small bombs - you're going to take the Design Bomb action yourself to remedy the situation. You're also probably not going to test a plutonium bomb for 0 points when you're not sure if you'll have another plutonium bomb to build (that would be pretty dumb). Keep in mind that even if a player is dumb or unfortunate enough to be stuck with the theoretical minimum number of points in his hand, the limits I came up with still protect that player. He'll still have enough points in his hand to fulfill the target number (60, 80, 90, 150).

I haven't noticed that the Nations Expansion alters the game length. I suppose USA, Britain, and Japan might all make air strikes more likely - so on average when playing with these nations the game length might tend to be a bit longer, but in practice this just isn't readily apparent to me. Perhaps others will have different thoughts on this.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paulo Santoro
Brazil
São Paulo
São Paulo
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
schmanthony wrote:
I'm fairly confident that the increased target VPs I came up with...

5 players: 60
4 players: 80
3 players: 90
2 players: 150

... will be safe to use. As Chris pointed out, it's incredibly unlikely that the shut-out situation would ever happen anyway if all players are acting reasonably in their own interests. You're just not going to take the smallest bomb from the face-up bomb cards every time, and eventually if you feel like you've been stuck with a lot of small bombs - you're going to take the Design Bomb action yourself to remedy the situation. You're also probably not going to test a plutonium bomb for 0 points when you're not sure if you'll have another plutonium bomb to build (that would be pretty dumb). Keep in mind that even if a player is dumb or unfortunate enough to be stuck with the theoretical minimum number of points in his hand, the limits I came up with still protect that player. He'll still have enough points in his hand to fulfill the target number (60, 80, 90, 150).

I haven't noticed that the Nations Expansion alters the game length. I suppose USA, Britain, and Japan might all make air strikes more likely - so on average when playing with these nations the game length might tend to be a bit longer, but in practice this just isn't readily apparent to me. Perhaps others will have different thoughts on this.


Brandon, thank you for the ideas. But let me ask you, please: what do you think that makes for a better game? The rules in the box (50 VP in 4p)? Or what you suggested here (80 VP in 4p)?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Norwood
United States
Graham
North Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Come visit me at GamerChris.com for all sorts of chewy, gamery goodness!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Brandon can certainly answer as well, but since this is my review, I'll jump in as well.

Obviously, I think The Manhattan Project is a fantastic game. But with my group (who tends to play games pretty quickly), the 4- and 5-player games felt like they ended prematurely. So extending the game to 60 or more points (mostly just to require the building of a third bomb) improves our experience with it. But I don't really see the need to extend the 2- or 3-player games, which already feel more complete.

However, if your group is slower/more AP-prone, this may not be a good idea. I've heard some people talk about 2-3 hour games as is, and extending it further would likely wear out its welcome.

It's ultimately a matter of taste, so the "better game" is going to be completely subjective based on you and your group.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brandon Tibbetts
United States
Oak Lawn
Illinois
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I couldn't have said it better myself. I haven't played too much with "extended" final scores. I've played a 2-player to 100 pts and a 4-player to 60 points, and both games played just fine. For a new group I'd advise that you use the scores as printed in the rules:

2p: 70
3p: 60
4p: 50
5p: 45

Later, if the same group plays the game again and everyone thinks it's a good idea, I'd suggest playing to a higher score.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paulo Santoro
Brazil
São Paulo
São Paulo
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Brandon and Chris, great answers. But now let me ask this: what do you think that a tournament rule should be?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Norwood
United States
Graham
North Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Come visit me at GamerChris.com for all sorts of chewy, gamery goodness!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
My assumption there would absoluely be rules as written in the rulebook.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Hayes
United States
Richmond
VA
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Played this for the first time last night. The group was 2 experienced gamers and three novice gamers. After a little bit of apprehension from the novices the game took off and we all had a great time. One of the novice players won the game and beat me simply because I didn't have enough cash to load my bomb. Great game, looking forward to picking it up soon.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nick Bornschein
Germany
Frankfurt
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for the great review. What do you think, is the game also we'll playable with 2 players?

Best
-Nick
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.