Sounds like I missed a real winner.  I haven’t heard anything but complaints out of the crew about this game, so I think I can live with it.  If you guys wanted old school political intrigue, you should have broken out Smokers Wild!

TR

I’ve never heard of Candidate - doesn’t sound like I missed much. I’ll second Die Macher as the epitome of election games. (But I haven’t had a chance to try 1960: The Making of the President yet.) For a shorter American-based election game, my favorite is still the old 3M game Mr. President. One of the few games I played as a kid that still holds up today. Not a simulation by any means, but there is a fair amount going on in it. You have to love the ballot box - and the old electoral vote numbers from an era when the Northeast still mattered politically.

Bob Scherer-Hoock

The Super Tuesday activities totally reminded me of Die Macher, especially the allegations of the candidates combining votes to beat the other candidate.

Were you using the groundlaying rules? The main reason you usually don’t put up the big states first is because you want a chance to put groundwork there, thus when the states do come up you’ll have a better chance of winning them. Or at the very least give yourself a chance to build up a hand to take them.

Granted it’s not the world’s greatest game. But comparing it to Die Macher is like comparing a turkey sandwich with filet mingon. Sure given a choice you’d like to have the latter every time, but who has the money/time to do so?

Bob writes:

“For a shorter American-based election game, my favorite is still the old 3M game Mr. President.”

Having played both 1960 and Die Macher, Mr. President still remains my favorite election game.

Peter wrote:

“Were you using the groundlaying rules? The main reason you usually don’t put up the big states first is because you want a chance to put groundwork there, thus when the states do come up you’ll have a better chance of winning them. Or at the very least give yourself a chance to build up a hand to take them.”

Yes, we played with the groundlaying rules.  It didn’t improve the game any.

Thanks, Kris, your article reminds me how far boardgame design has come.

Your line, “...it is never a good sign when players are calculating ways the game system could be improved” reminds me that upon seeing Candidate announced in Avalon Hill’s The General in ‘90, I wrote--for the first time--to Don Greenwood to ask to playtest.

And, sure enough, if you look at the Credits for the game you’ll see yours truly listed.  The one big contribution I made was to note the absence of an Electoral Vote marker for Washington DC (the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution was passed in ‘61, BTW, which is why 1960: The Making of the President doesn’t include a marker for DC).

Having been raised on the game Mr. President (which has been given the thumbs up by Bob Scherer-Hoock and Joe Huber here in comments) I was understandably disappointed with Candidate, and by the time playtesting was over I had suggested Don redo the design and had even sent him an add-on component.  I still remember his response: It was that his attention was now focused on March Madness.

But that wasn’t the last time I played Candidate.  For many years I attended what is now the WBC--and what was then AvalonCon back in the ‘90s--and in late ‘95 had actually drawn up a Candidate variant that included Clinton, Dole, Perot, Gramm, Wilson, Jackson and Powell with additional rules to make the game more interesting and better represent reality. Advance copies of Age of Renaissance became available, though, in ‘96 and I was asked to run that event instead. I did run a Mr. President variant at the WBC in ‘04, however.

Ah yes, Mr. President (one wonders whether the designer experienced any hesitation in using the ‘Mr’, since as early as ‘72 there was a woman candidate)....  I checked out BGG yesterday and found that thanks to Eric Johnson, one can download a version for ‘08.  Then, all you need is the game’s cards, which can be had for about $10 on e-bay (just be sure you don’t buy the ‘71 edition--check out Joe Huber’s comprehensive discussion of the various editions, also available for download). Or, I have a few decks I’d be happy to send anyone wanting a set.  Of course, ideally, an ‘08 version would come with new cards that reflect the shift in electoral votes between the census in ‘60 and that in ‘00.  I, BTW, intend to design just such a game to coincide with the 2010 census.

And finally, I’ve been playing 1960: The Making of the President and will need more playtime to form a definite opinion, though it’s easily a great game.  My one serious complaint--by way of comparison with Mr. President--is that in 1960 TMotP one knows who is ahead in each state, whereas in Mr. President there is that mysterious unknown sense of being ahead in a state, but not being sure about it until the votes are counted--so much more like the real nail-biting thing.  So, I’m going to agree with Mr. Huber and say that Mr. President compares favorably with the competition.  Candidate, meanwhile, it seems safe to say, is the designated loser.

Kris,
“The Appalachian Gamer reactions to Candidate seemed to range from mild boredom to furious contempt.” There is no way that Ted or I fall in that description. I like to play the game every 4 years. It is not great but I enjoy the process of the game.

My mistake, Charlie.  I guess I was projecting my own feelings onto you guys.  But I’m pretty sure there was some furious contempt in the room somewhere.

I’m with Charlie on this.  We play Candidate once every four years, to coincide with the U.S. Presidential election.  It isn’t a great game, but we always have fun with it.  Of course, we spice-it-up by wearing nifty plastic “election” hats!