You probably dont give a shit but if you are bored like me during the covid times you can stream all the latest movies on InstaFlixxer. I've been watching with my brother lately xD
I'm surprised that when discussing the interaction in the original Manhattan Project, you ignored the spy track, which is a super cool interaction mechanism--and unlike the planes, I don't think I've seen a game without the spies being used.
I am definitely curious to try this, as my tastes often line up with Sam quite often and I liked his points. Tom's points about how is scales sound like they should be heeded, though. I really love the original game, as well, so I seriously hope I can find a way to play this one before buying.
Tom's point is real, but Sam has the response: if you're playing the "standard" length with five players, you need to look ahead on the scoring track, anticipate, and do a bit of leap-frogging.
I actually strongly agree with Tom's assessment here. In fact, the spacing here is deliberately chosen because you aren't supposed to be able to do anything. This is a game where playing the other players is just as important and playing the game, and part of that is figuring out things to barely edge out on your opponent on. Specializing on one or two tracks is actually punishing in this game, due to the way spies work.
I just want to chime in on the topic of Who Should Do the "How to Play" segment: I think that Variety is the Key to maintaining viewer engagement. One of the outstanding virtues of this great group is the way they reflect different tastes and interests in games while yet appreciating different points of view. I think that this should also be reflected in the How to Play portion of the review by having all three members take turns in demonstrating and explaining the games. Finally, I want express my strong support of Sam in all of this. I find Sam to be more than competent in his explanations and would welcome him as an equal and vital participant in the type of rotation I am suggesting. (Although I guess I wouldn't ever want to have Sam demonstrate a dexterity game given his well-known dislike of components too small for his enormous hands!) All best to Sam, Sam's Ginormous Hands, and, of course, Tom and Zee. Kevin
So this was a very interesting review, thanks for putting it up. Our games of the original MP are filled with Espionage and Air Strike actions, with Espionage strongest at low player counts and Air Strikes at high player counts. These actions are critical to pulling back the leader, and it's very hard to stop someone at the end, so these direct interactions start early in all our games. I think players new to MP (a) think it looks like multi-player solitaire, and (b) have a hard time evaluating who is ahead. This leads to underutilization of the "interactivity" spots, and a belief that, because you built a building, you should be the one to use it! Minutes to Midnight addresses both issues, as it forces players to interact, and it's easier to see who is going for which scoring opportunities. I have only a few games of MtM so far, but it feels very deep and strategic. I'm gonna guess that Sam's love for the multi-player wheeling and dealing in Twilight Imperium carries over to both these great games. Two nukes up for both from me!
Wow. I can't believe how much I disagree with Tom + Zee. My group and I have thoroughly enjoyed our plays of this so far. The game is all about trying to optimise your play given when the different elements score - all the while out-playing your opponents. You cannot play your own little game on your personal board - you have to play the players. I love this! The potential swings in scoring (because scoring is mostly relative) amp up the competitiveness and force you to out-think your opponents in terms of timing. They also add a risk/reward mechanism in that the elements that score the most are also the most risky. If you don't like this, and want to focus inwardly, then you can target the ICMB, test site and airplane mechanisms. It's not easy to win this way, but it is possible. You should also focus on two, maybe three of scoring elements - this is certainly a game where you want to do everything, but only have time do half the stuff (if that).. but that makes each decision important and overall more satisfying when you pull off a big play. I feel like Tom must have tried to do too much, or just had a bad play. I've always heavily relied on Tom's opinion, because I felt we had similar tastes. I'm so glad I bought this before watching this review, because I would not have bought the game otherwise. What a mistake that would have been.. I love this game!
Agreed. I feel like a lot of their issues seemed symptomatic of far from optimal play. In my games the third world track has been quite hotly contested and tight. Also, strategic timing of the rhythm of placing out and pulling back can greatly vary the amount and success of scoring. If you are not paying attention and utilizing to your advantage you will not have a a good time. Pulling back at a time that isn't great for you but very bad for others can be the difference between a win and a loss. It is a game where weighing risk and reward is huge. You could place workers, risking the possibility of no one pulling back to double your score, or you could play it safe and go ahead and trigger scoring. Understanding the motivations of other players is huge. If you are going to place out subs and there will be opportunity to scan, you better either target someone where probability is in your favor, or target someone highly demotivated to scan. To me it sounds like they weren't paying enough attention to the other players to mitigate risks and got burned. I can see how this could be off-putting, but to me this isn't a problem with the game, it just means you need to pay close attention to all other players to do well.
Well put Nate, heaps of good points. I appreciate the challenge of trying to time it just right so you can get your subs or bombers out there just in time for scoring so that other players can't place fighters or scan. Or on the flip side, trigger scoring just before other players are able to deploy theirs..
I am definitely a person susceptible to group think. Once a couple of people like/dislike something, I tend to follow suit. Really appreciated Sam's thoughts here.
The Manhattan Project series has been one of the most formative games in my close friends and I getting into modern board games. MP remains as one of our favorite euros while Energy Empire fell flat because of the lack of interaction. Passive aggressive spot or building grabbing doesn't cut it for us which informs all of my euro purchases now. The bombing, or more likely the threat of it and the beautiful espionage track of MP was sorely missed in EE. If anyone wanted to play a well designed and thematic solitaire euro I'd still get EE out, it's just not our taste. Looking forward to getting this to the table though and see if it captures any of our love of the original.
Im with sam. As my experience with gaming has grown, I found this much heavier but satisfying. You also two choices: Play a shorter game and go for victory in one category or play the epic one and try to win all aspects.
TBH, I fast forward through all of their rules overview sections during these videos, regardless of which of them does it. It seems like they all try to teach the game which is tough for me when I can't see the individual components so well and don't have the game on front of me. I guess I'm more of a kinesthetic learner rather than audio/visual.
MP1 is in print and any store should be able to get it from their distributors and/or from Impressions (our consolidator) in the USA. Just nag your store more. It's out there and not rare unless the channel doesn't order it.
Im happy I missed the kickstarter for this, even though MP may as well be my favourite game of all time. But considering I mainly play it 2 players and we never use the atack spot of the board, this is definetely not for us.
Sam, you are not bad at teaching games - I'm no better at it myself. It's a really hard thing to do well. Tom is remarkably exceptional at teaching games, so kinda sucks you get compared to him. That said, it's always nice to see folks do what they are exceptional at and to that extent, I miss the Tom explanations for Miami Dice. Specifically, I can't see the details on the components when Sam is talking about them in this review, the explanation goes on for over 15min (too long imo), the explanation seems to jump around a lot with a lot of editing - it's hard to follow.
I really regretted having backed this one... I felt in the beginning this would not be as good as the first but I was stubborn and did it anyway... Not to mention Minion games really did not treat its backers in the best way... I am selling my copy and never backing Minion again...
I feel the same way about Minion's attitude towards backers. A lot of interactions I saw on the comment thread as well as BGG seemed like Minion was annoyed with having to communicate with people. I understand that repeated questions can get frustrating but that doesn't stop other publishers/developers from staying friendly and upbeat.
I even got scolded by them for pointing the weird fact they made the game available on retail even before everybody got their KS copy and for cheaper... Never again...
@@dddmmm21 I've seen that problem with other KS projects as well. Its why I won't back a KSer project anymore unless it has KS "exclusives". If it doesn't have exclusives then its almost a guarantee that the retail version will be the same price or cheaper then you paid for the KS version, and you got nothing for being a backer. A company that's made an art out of KSer campaigns would be CMON. If you back on of their KS projects you definitely get your money's worth.
Seems like a better game than the first one. But also heavier than it needed to be. Subs and third world countries seem like totally unnecessary contrivances.
Except it's not a king maker game. I'm not sure where Tom and Zee are getting that from, but just because you may remove only one player's subs during a sub sweep does not make it king making. And that's only one of the four scoring opportunities. Any interactive multiplayer game can have king making in it if a player intentionally plays sub-optimally. Calling it a "king maker" game is a gross mischaracterization of the game.
Agreed with Dan, it didn't feel like a king maker to us. (a) When you sweep for subs or place bombers, you're improving your own score. (b) You don't get to choose which subs to remove, so you're not picking a player to win. (c) It's on the players placing subs and bombers to mitigate the risk of sweeps and fighters. If you play loose and give other players the opportunity to counter, then you pretty-much deserve it when they do. (d) There are other scoring elements to pursue if you don't want to go for the riskier (but higher scoring) sub + bomber options. This game is very strategic, so it feels very satisfying when you pull off some big scoring.
Please, can Zee or Tom do the "how to play" parts? Sam make those kind of boring and I tend to stop listening watching, even if i'm very interested in how to play "this" game... I do love your trio, when discussing things(final thoughs, top10s etc) but i/m not a fan of Sam's solo reviews/parts, as opposed to Tom/Zee
I don't know about boring, but just very disjointed and all over the place to where after watching I feel like I have NO idea how the game even plays. I don't feel that Zee is much better. I can only watch Tom's overviews. He does a great job.
I prefer Tom for these. Not that I don’t like watching Sam’s reviews, his are great for learning about the game in detail. But not the best fit for Miami dicd
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Miami Dice is my favorite format of reviewing. It's great to hear different opinions from people that played together
You probably dont give a shit but if you are bored like me during the covid times you can stream all the latest movies on InstaFlixxer. I've been watching with my brother lately xD
@Johnathan Cairo Yea, have been using instaflixxer for since november myself :)
Another fantastic episode of Miami Dice, fellows. I like the amount of videos in this series you've been doing lately...the more the merrier. =D
Thank you for the overview Sam!
I'm surprised that when discussing the interaction in the original Manhattan Project, you ignored the spy track, which is a super cool interaction mechanism--and unlike the planes, I don't think I've seen a game without the spies being used.
I am definitely curious to try this, as my tastes often line up with Sam quite often and I liked his points. Tom's points about how is scales sound like they should be heeded, though. I really love the original game, as well, so I seriously hope I can find a way to play this one before buying.
Tom's point is real, but Sam has the response: if you're playing the "standard" length with five players, you need to look ahead on the scoring track, anticipate, and do a bit of leap-frogging.
I actually strongly agree with Tom's assessment here. In fact, the spacing here is deliberately chosen because you aren't supposed to be able to do anything. This is a game where playing the other players is just as important and playing the game, and part of that is figuring out things to barely edge out on your opponent on. Specializing on one or two tracks is actually punishing in this game, due to the way spies work.
I just want to chime in on the topic of Who Should Do the "How to Play" segment:
I think that Variety is the Key to maintaining viewer engagement. One of the outstanding virtues of this great group is the way they reflect different tastes and interests in games while yet appreciating different points of view.
I think that this should also be reflected in the How to Play portion of the review by having all three members take turns in demonstrating and explaining the games.
Finally, I want express my strong support of Sam in all of this.
I find Sam to be more than competent in his explanations and would welcome him as an equal and vital participant in the type of rotation I am suggesting.
(Although I guess I wouldn't ever want to have Sam demonstrate a dexterity game given his well-known dislike of components too small for his enormous hands!)
All best to Sam, Sam's Ginormous Hands, and, of course, Tom and Zee.
Kevin
So this was a very interesting review, thanks for putting it up. Our games of the original MP are filled with Espionage and Air Strike actions, with Espionage strongest at low player counts and Air Strikes at high player counts. These actions are critical to pulling back the leader, and it's very hard to stop someone at the end, so these direct interactions start early in all our games.
I think players new to MP (a) think it looks like multi-player solitaire, and (b) have a hard time evaluating who is ahead. This leads to underutilization of the "interactivity" spots, and a belief that, because you built a building, you should be the one to use it!
Minutes to Midnight addresses both issues, as it forces players to interact, and it's easier to see who is going for which scoring opportunities. I have only a few games of MtM so far, but it feels very deep and strategic.
I'm gonna guess that Sam's love for the multi-player wheeling and dealing in Twilight Imperium carries over to both these great games. Two nukes up for both from me!
Wow. I can't believe how much I disagree with Tom + Zee. My group and I have thoroughly enjoyed our plays of this so far. The game is all about trying to optimise your play given when the different elements score - all the while out-playing your opponents. You cannot play your own little game on your personal board - you have to play the players. I love this!
The potential swings in scoring (because scoring is mostly relative) amp up the competitiveness and force you to out-think your opponents in terms of timing. They also add a risk/reward mechanism in that the elements that score the most are also the most risky. If you don't like this, and want to focus inwardly, then you can target the ICMB, test site and airplane mechanisms. It's not easy to win this way, but it is possible. You should also focus on two, maybe three of scoring elements - this is certainly a game where you want to do everything, but only have time do half the stuff (if that).. but that makes each decision important and overall more satisfying when you pull off a big play.
I feel like Tom must have tried to do too much, or just had a bad play. I've always heavily relied on Tom's opinion, because I felt we had similar tastes. I'm so glad I bought this before watching this review, because I would not have bought the game otherwise. What a mistake that would have been.. I love this game!
Agreed. I feel like a lot of their issues seemed symptomatic of far from optimal play. In my games the third world track has been quite hotly contested and tight. Also, strategic timing of the rhythm of placing out and pulling back can greatly vary the amount and success of scoring. If you are not paying attention and utilizing to your advantage you will not have a a good time. Pulling back at a time that isn't great for you but very bad for others can be the difference between a win and a loss.
It is a game where weighing risk and reward is huge. You could place workers, risking the possibility of no one pulling back to double your score, or you could play it safe and go ahead and trigger scoring. Understanding the motivations of other players is huge. If you are going to place out subs and there will be opportunity to scan, you better either target someone where probability is in your favor, or target someone highly demotivated to scan.
To me it sounds like they weren't paying enough attention to the other players to mitigate risks and got burned. I can see how this could be off-putting, but to me this isn't a problem with the game, it just means you need to pay close attention to all other players to do well.
Well put Nate, heaps of good points. I appreciate the challenge of trying to time it just right so you can get your subs or bombers out there just in time for scoring so that other players can't place fighters or scan. Or on the flip side, trigger scoring just before other players are able to deploy theirs..
I am definitely a person susceptible to group think. Once a couple of people like/dislike something, I tend to follow suit. Really appreciated Sam's thoughts here.
I think you are not susceptible to group think. (Others need to chime in here too with the same comment.)
The Manhattan Project series has been one of the most formative games in my close friends and I getting into modern board games. MP remains as one of our favorite euros while Energy Empire fell flat because of the lack of interaction. Passive aggressive spot or building grabbing doesn't cut it for us which informs all of my euro purchases now. The bombing, or more likely the threat of it and the beautiful espionage track of MP was sorely missed in EE. If anyone wanted to play a well designed and thematic solitaire euro I'd still get EE out, it's just not our taste. Looking forward to getting this to the table though and see if it captures any of our love of the original.
Im with sam. As my experience with gaming has grown, I found this much heavier but satisfying. You also two choices: Play a shorter game and go for victory in one category or play the epic one and try to win all aspects.
TBH, I fast forward through all of their rules overview sections during these videos, regardless of which of them does it. It seems like they all try to teach the game which is tough for me when I can't see the individual components so well and don't have the game on front of me. I guess I'm more of a kinesthetic learner rather than audio/visual.
Any chance they'll reprint the first game to go along with this one? I'm interested but can't find it anywhere in my country.
MP1 is in print and any store should be able to get it from their distributors and/or from Impressions (our consolidator) in the USA. Just nag your store more. It's out there and not rare unless the channel doesn't order it.
Im happy I missed the kickstarter for this, even though MP may as well be my favourite game of all time. But considering I mainly play it 2 players and we never use the atack spot of the board, this is definetely not for us.
You do use Espionage though? The two-player game is all Espionage, all the time! :)
I know Tom and Zee like the original Manhattan Project better than 2 Minutes to Midnight, but what about The Manhattan Project Energy Empire Game?
I personally love it. I know Zee likes it. They reviewed it back when it came out, just search for the review.
Sam, you are not bad at teaching games - I'm no better at it myself. It's a really hard thing to do well. Tom is remarkably exceptional at teaching games, so kinda sucks you get compared to him. That said, it's always nice to see folks do what they are exceptional at and to that extent, I miss the Tom explanations for Miami Dice. Specifically, I can't see the details on the components when Sam is talking about them in this review, the explanation goes on for over 15min (too long imo), the explanation seems to jump around a lot with a lot of editing - it's hard to follow.
I really regretted having backed this one... I felt in the beginning this would not be as good as the first but I was stubborn and did it anyway... Not to mention Minion games really did not treat its backers in the best way... I am selling my copy and never backing Minion again...
I feel the same way about Minion's attitude towards backers. A lot of interactions I saw on the comment thread as well as BGG seemed like Minion was annoyed with having to communicate with people. I understand that repeated questions can get frustrating but that doesn't stop other publishers/developers from staying friendly and upbeat.
I even got scolded by them for pointing the weird fact they made the game available on retail even before everybody got their KS copy and for cheaper... Never again...
@@dddmmm21 I've seen that problem with other KS projects as well. Its why I won't back a KSer project anymore unless it has KS "exclusives". If it doesn't have exclusives then its almost a guarantee that the retail version will be the same price or cheaper then you paid for the KS version, and you got nothing for being a backer. A company that's made an art out of KSer campaigns would be CMON. If you back on of their KS projects you definitely get your money's worth.
Seems like a better game than the first one. But also heavier than it needed to be. Subs and third world countries seem like totally unnecessary contrivances.
Sam might want to go back and watch his GLOWING review for the Manhattan Project card game before declaring it "not that good".
Satire perhaps? I also checked, Sam did say it was fun and his family quite liked it.
I thought the card game was alright. Not pulling up any trees, but it gave a similar vibe and was easy to play.
Or you know... he could have changed his mind?
MP is a great game. Sad to hear that MP2 is a 'king maker' game :( Really hate that in games as winning or losing feels cheap.
Except it's not a king maker game. I'm not sure where Tom and Zee are getting that from, but just because you may remove only one player's subs during a sub sweep does not make it king making. And that's only one of the four scoring opportunities. Any interactive multiplayer game can have king making in it if a player intentionally plays sub-optimally. Calling it a "king maker" game is a gross mischaracterization of the game.
Agreed with Dan, it didn't feel like a king maker to us. (a) When you sweep for subs or place bombers, you're improving your own score. (b) You don't get to choose which subs to remove, so you're not picking a player to win. (c) It's on the players placing subs and bombers to mitigate the risk of sweeps and fighters. If you play loose and give other players the opportunity to counter, then you pretty-much deserve it when they do. (d) There are other scoring elements to pursue if you don't want to go for the riskier (but higher scoring) sub + bomber options. This game is very strategic, so it feels very satisfying when you pull off some big scoring.
If only I could support Minion Games. But can't after the whole Facebook controversy and the political comments that their founder made.
Please, can Zee or Tom do the "how to play" parts? Sam make those kind of boring and I tend to stop listening watching, even if i'm very interested in how to play "this" game... I do love your trio, when discussing things(final thoughs, top10s etc) but i/m not a fan of Sam's solo reviews/parts, as opposed to Tom/Zee
I don't know about boring, but just very disjointed and all over the place to where after watching I feel like I have NO idea how the game even plays. I don't feel that Zee is much better. I can only watch Tom's overviews. He does a great job.
Agreed, the Sam explanations, though thorough, are significantly longer than Tom's or Zee's. Explanation should be as short and sweet as possible.
I like Sam's overviews. I actually want to know something about the rules and mechanics of the game.
I fast forward after a few minutes of Sam’s how to play. Can’t stand hearing “uhh” all the time...miss Tom explaining the rules.
I prefer Tom for these. Not that I don’t like watching Sam’s reviews, his are great for learning about the game in detail. But not the best fit for Miami dicd