These reviews were left by users who have played the game. If you'd like to leave a review, you can start by going to the game page.
I'm not sure that I can see any reason to prefer this over Twilight Struggle--the debate turn is unsatisfyingly irrelevant, the game takes too long for what it is, and the momentum mechanic is a tad too flukey. Don't get me wrong, it's an alright game, to be sure--but it pales compared to TS. But then again, what doesn't?
I found this game to be less interesting than Twilight Struggle. While I know it’s not completely fair to compare the two, they do occupy a similar space. I found a lot of the gameplay more opaque, in that it was often difficult to tell what effect a choice made. Perhaps through repeated plays, that would become much clearer.
After 1 play, I liked it a lot. Obviously very similar to Twilight Struggle, but at first blush I'd have to say I like TS better. The adding up of electoral votes at the end is extremely tedious, but in a way it adds to the suspense. I have some worries that the game may lack replayability, but ironically it will take another play to be sure. *UPDATE* After a second play, I'm still undecided. New York still seems to be the deciding factor, and is perhaps a game winner. My second game was very different from the first, which is definitely a good thing. Looking forward to a few more plays.
Wow. I love every element of this game. Simple mechanics, variable probability in the cube draws, multiple uses for cards (out the proverbial wazoo), and a theme that oozes out of the board and game play. Simply brilliant.
While I really enjoyed my first play of this game, the second game felt very "same". I'll play again sometime, but am now wondering how varied the game play is going to feel.
Played this game for the first time and enjoyed it. The game felt like no other game I have played. The only thing I see that may flaw it is that there is only 91 cards and you use at least 88 per game. As such I think this may hurt the replaying of the game as one gets to know the cards. Other games with more cards alow you to replay as you will not get the same cards. All in all though it is a must have game. Overall Score 8, Appearence 10, Components 9, The Box (storage) 6, Rulebook 9, Ease of Play 8, Mechanics 8, Involvment 10, Replayability 7, Uniqueness 10, Luck 4 v Strategy 6 (The higher the number the more it leans that way.)
Got to play this for the first time tonight (7/7/15). Great game, a bit easier to learn than Twilight Struggle which for me, is its nearest comparison. Lots of tug-of-war as players choose to control states, push the issues, control the media or play thematic events from the period. Would suggest multiple plays are required to grasp the depth to the strategy involved. Thanks Steve 'Nixon' Barker for introducing me to the game. P500 pre-ordered GMT 2016 re-release 22/12/17 - Now the proud owner of the GMT edition, alas not managed a game of the new edition yet.
I've only gotten a couple of plays of it in, but it felt less engaging to me than a game like Twilight Struggle. The end of the game can swing things very much one way or the other, which makes previous turns a bit less tense than I feel they should be. Certainly not a bad game, but not one I'd put into my collection as it stands.
This game-- fairly or unfairly-- inevitably gets compared to Twilight Struggle. Insomuch as it's a CDG with some shared mechanics. However, there are core differences that lead the two games into wildly different categories: -Strategy over tactics: With no cards that can end the game early-- and the fact that events don't automatically trigger when you play an opponent's card-- it's essential to execute on a long-term plan. There is only one scoring round in 1960: Election Day at the end of the game. This allows players to plan more and react less than the unpredictable player-triggered scoring rounds of TS. -Less luck: the use of Momentum to trigger events played by opponents means getting dealt of Nixon cards when you're Kennedy doesn't necessarily make an entire turn a miserable experience of disaster mitigation. This also contributes to the more strategic bend of 1960. And obviously, the lack of dice contributes to this. The output randomness of dice in TS has a major impact on the game. Pulling cubes for support checks only matters in specific circumstances, and it can be mitigated through planning throughout the game. -Less tension: The variety of endgame conditions that are active from Turn 1 makes TS and edge-of-your-seat tug-of-war from the first deal of the cards. This tension drives an incredible amount of engagement and though TS played out through the final turn is over twice as long as 1960, the pace never drags. 1960, conversely, will be played out over the full set of turns every game. While this is a major contributor to the prioritization of strategy over tactics, it also means the tension doesn't develop until much later in the game. If comparing the two side-by-side, I prefer the tense, tactical tug-of-war that Twilight Struggle offers. It's a game that rewards study and experience and an unmatched tense 2p slugfest between two equally skilled players. 1960 is still an enjoyable game, and one that is easier to get to the table for it's shorter playing time, but I find it to be less engaging. Trade condition notes: There is a very small (and superficial) damaged area on the box. Excellent condition over all.
A really excellent election simulator, with solid incorporation of the history behind it. Set up and scoring take a lot of time, but the former can be helped by not setting out the state seals and the latter with the scoring tool available from BGG. I wouldn't want to play it often, because it would get repetitive, but every once in a while it's really fun.