My scores went from 32 to 49 to 94 and then another 94 (but I've seen 108). At no point did it feel like luck or swinginess determined anything. It felt very finely balanced. And the limiting factor was player skill and time needed for learning. To solve a tough sudoku can take four hours of being stuck. Evacuation is a sandboxy puzzle that frustrates in order to delight in the long run. I've seen success through heavy tech-investment, low tech-investment, wiping the offers, not wiping the offers, focusing on pre-fabbing, only using shipped factories, transporting the starting stadium, not transporting the starting stadium, getting five stadiums to maximise happy faces etc. So many different builds. The depth is incredible. And I think it is one of the most thematically immersive games I've ever played.
I'm sorry, "thematically immersive"? That's a very low bar of thematic integration when we're talking about progress tracks and diagonal lining up infrastructures. Also come on, how is "wiping the offers" considered a variance in strategy and depth? Really? You've opened a massive world in other Euro games if that's a contender for long term strategic depth. That's a means to an end if you don't like what you see, not a strategy to winning the game. Same goes for transporting the starting stadium, you either do it or you don't (so that's 4 of those listed "strategies" gone), usually you might as well as getting a lot of stadiums is mostly pointless anyway especially with the pitiful end game scoring for it.
@@TheBrokenMeeple The overall feeling of the game is super-thematic (separate resources on two planets, timing the transferral from one place to the other without hamstringing your logistics, choosing how many ships to run and when, and whether to return them, losing extra points for population left behind at the end). What you are doing is to nitpick about a few eurogame-y scoring rules that are not thematic. One could do that with Lacerda games like On Mars (and most thematic heavy euro board games). It does not affect my immersion with the theme in any way. If stadiums are a public objective, racing for them is a nice move. Generally, those non-thematic rules nudge players to try different things on different plays. It’s all positive, and I would include everything listed on the scorepad (no reason to fret about which variant to go for),
This is a 8 for me. We greatly enjoyed the brain burn. It feels a bit rough around the edges but the basic concept is fascinating to me. I think one expansion would easily push this to greatness. Suchy can do it. This is a diamond in the rough and I hope it gets the polish it deserves. My favorite Spiel from Essen this year. Also, I 100% adore how small the box is. This is a HUGE game packed into a SMALL box. I appreciate that!
If I’m remembering the designer notes they wanted something lighter and easier after the last few but then because of abrupt endings and lighter affair they added the modules for added complexity which as a consumer I really appreciate, however as stated in the review it makes it a bit of a mixed bag and some of it feels tacked on. I will say I prefer modules in the base game rather than expansions but I want balance and seemlessly integration not let’s see what works
I will respectfully disagree here. Vladimir Suchy is one of the premier designers in the hobby and, with this game, he has shown his growth as a designer, possibly creating the only game to rival his previous classic Underwater Cities. The game is complex and very, very deep. Almost Lacerda level and so, is not for everyone. As a solo gamer, I especially appreciate how he can make such streamlined and simple solo modes for fairly heavy games. Very similar to Rosenberg's solo modes. It took me several plays to even begin to formulate ways of finding winning strategies. I am amazed at the genius level thought process that went into this design and what it must have required to balance it. BTW, he also released another game this year, Alderbaren Duel, that is also very fun and worth checking out. It is very similar to Race for the Galaxy, but more accessible without losing the depth or decision space.
I'm not disagreeing with you here but BYOS solos are by nature streamlined and much easier to create. If you have a good game puzzle, sometimes BYOS is enough.
@@TheBrokenMeeple I agree with your assessment of UC. However, I (and this is certainly meant as no offense to you personally, Luke) also think that "complexity for the sake of" might be the most overused term in board gaming. In no way do I believe a good designer thinks to himself, how can I create the most complex and difficult game to learn just because I can. But, good designers do often challenge themselves and build on previous ideas with each new design and this often results in deeper and more complex games (see Garphill as another example of this).
That one I've acknowledged was there, albeit printed very small, it's not on the board at all but that one I can let go of, still leaves all the others though.
The action cards are not swingy. The best ones give very low progress. The bad ones give a bit more progress. I tend to play the low progress cards. But tucking around half of cards just to get progress is a great way to play well. I don't think the complaints/flaws will irk people who patiently try it three or four times. In fact, I can't consider them as flaws at all, in the long run.
If a player gets better action cards with multiple actions vs someone resorting to having to use the basic actions, that in itself is an advantage to that player. The cards are not worse than the basic actions. And given you only have to get equal to or less than the bonus power levels (as playing on strict mode is just ridiculous AP inducing), the odd variance here and there doesn't come into play much.
Whether you guys enjoy this game or not, if anybody is looking for a similar experience, the game space station phoenix is really quite good. It has a similar 'dismantle here to build there' aspect, theme, price point, and even color pallet. I've never played evacuation so I can't say just how similar, but it might give the same feel with a little less fiddle. Lots of table space needed though
Space Station Phoenix is much better than Evacuation for me, thats a 9, with the only real issues for me being some fiddliness and the fact its a huge table hog.
Underwater Cities is one of my favorite games, so every year after it was published I eagerly await Suchy's next game to see if it will be as good as that. And I wait, and I wait, and needless to say, I am still waiting. Oh, well, we will always have UC! Cheers for the great video.
I'm in the same boat love UC so much and it's so good really kinda hope he does a design that takes some of the stuff from UC and maybe changes it up a little, I can hope :)
After three games of Evacuation, I sold Underwater Cities with no regrets. I had a fully sleeved copy of UC with the expansion and green biodome (it just doesn't have as many juicy/tough decisions). Evacuation is So much better (although it took me a few games to warm to it).
@@nkorppiUC is plus 8 rating for a reason. After 6 years. Evacuation ratings will only continue going down. Very unlikely it even maintains a 7 rating after a year out.
@@shatnershairpiece Unclear. It really does matter either way. Some games are fast food and easy to grok on first play. Other games are here for those who like to savour a good challenge. Same with Weather Machine. Could not care less if the rating goes up or down. However, high rating or low rating has no correlation with Luke's tastes. Brass Birmingham isn't exactly a marmite game? It doesn't matter.
I really like this one, it is very challenging while not being very hard to learn, and I like games like that. Seems like again it will be hard for you to get to a top 10 of the year. Is it me or are you getting more and more critical with age =).
i was really super excited for the theme, and the wreck-it-rebuild-it twist on engine building euro, but everything you said that's bad about it, from the mechanics, to the components, is spot on and very disappointing. Even to the point where the baggies you get are super thin and cheap. couldn't even put nicer baggies in. I opened this game right after opening Raising Robots which came with nice baggies, but also a set of card sleeves. the difference was stark.
To bad, this game got my attention, but after this is like, mmmh, there is many other games to buy first. Nice review, this style of being very critic and honest, really like your take on the games.
The lack of thematic justification for rules rather reminds me of Jay (3 minute board games) criticism of On mars. He used a phrase 'because game' to describe rules that had no thematic explanation. I especially agree on micro rules, as they are so easy to forget, especially if they're not thematically obvious. I do like the basic premise, but it does feel like too many standard euro tropes were applied to the gameplay in terms of bonuses / objectives, and they bring a blandness that detracts from the central 'evacuation / new world' concept. It's a trait that's becoming worryingly common, where commonly used game mechanisms are shoe-horned into games irrespective of theme, and the overall vibe becomes rather like a 'now that's what I call boardgaming' compilation.
The theme here just feels like an after thought in some areas - the whole progress track is just literally a random mechanic thrown in. The bonus card, has no reason to be there.
I’m sensing a pattern here, Luke is, contrary to many board game reviewers, not giving passing grades as a default to every single new game that comes out, he’s anti cult of the new but not intentionally, seems he’s got a critical mind that can’t be shut off.
I find the review scores very very random to be honest. This game was okay, but quite lacked replayability, but i dont agree with the most of the criticisms in the vid.
@@cwaddle nothing random about it. The good things I like are balanced with the stuff I don't. Aesthetics are eye of the beholder for sure but the dodgy graphic design is a common shared opinion. And I'm not the only one on the comments who stated the big problem with the action cards variant.
I stopped watching these reviews because I feel like they’re like the one guy on Rotten Tomatoes that gives a negative review just to get views and then praises something that’s below average for the same reason. I’m watching and commenting on it so I guess it works. He’s getting views and standing out. I mean I suppose the game could be a 5 even though there are at least 5 contributors to the community that say this is the best game of the year.
@@johnhansel5379 so because a few people say it's the best game ever that means it must be right? Think hard about what you're implying there. And no, I do not give verdicts just to get views. And giving a praise video in general usually gets less views anyway so giving a bad game a good review wouldn't fit your attack either. By your reckoning anyone who critics anything is just after views which means every review you watch has to be super positive. For that Rahdo, Thinker and DT are just around the corner. It's called giving an honest opinion without bias to games, publishers and designers. Which is a far cry from the usual "everything is awesome" mentality that many other content creators use. And people are glad of it.
I agree 100% with your review and the various points raised. I played Evacuation and was really irritated by some of the glorifying reviews. The game is average at best and has some major issues. Your review perfectly nailed it and that’s the key reason why I watch your stuff !! A voice of reason amongst the useless cheerleaders out there…
@@TheBrokenMeeple I really loved the general theme behind it and the idea with the two planets and the split resource pools. But that’s where it stops and the rest of the implementation is just fiddly, flawed and mostly annoying. I assume many got blinded by the exciting theme and overlook the issues. But similar to you, I can’t either. What a pity, so much potential wasted !
Don’t think it makes sense to have favourite designers. Most don’t manage to have more than 1-2 really outstanding game designs. The reason why many still follow them individually is called the “halo effect”, which is a cognitive bias.
I would recommend playing again. More than any other game, my opinion on this went from "meh" to "wow" over around five games (full VP mode). I'm so glad I kept at it.
I appreciate your thoughts, Luke. Thank you. I always enjoy trying Suchy designs as I think he tries to innovate in a dry-euro space, but I am concerned for this one. I enjoy the solid Messina, but found it lacked substantial innovation. I thought I would enjoy Woodcraft more, but I found the (more) innovative mechanisms to fall short in how the game came together. I understand it is a difficult balance, but it seems he has not hit that magic mark for the past couple of years. Granted, those two were co-designs.. I still look forward to trying this, but I fear you are right; that Evacuation needed more development time. I know Delicious Games is his title/company, so I imagine the pressure to release titles in order to generate income from year to year is a primary goal; I cannot fault someone for that. It is unfortunate that this can get in the way of greater final products.
I was really excited for Evacuation because I like Underwater Cities, I like Vladimír Suchý, but at this point, I sat through two pretty long rule explaination videos and read some of the rulebook (found two little mistranslations already) and was going to play the solo mode to get a feel for it... but at this point, I'll just stop. This is WORK, and the thought of fighting through the solo mode of this fiddly, unfocused thing doesn't excite me any more.
I'm still deciding if your channel is for me. I love yoru no holds barred approach to reviews, tho i don't know that our tastes align. And I should also preface that while I own Evacuation, it's not a sunk cost idea for me. I buy and trade too many games to get caught up in thinking a game is good because I bought it. But I find some of you criticisms here to be off base. A number of them are pretty fair tho. A couple of examples: - I don't hate the graphic design. I don't love it but it connects for me. - The fact you need a steel to settle a population is on your player board. - Building similar plants/factories near each other lets you take advantage of economies of scale for infrastructure. Things like power, water and sewage/ waste disposal, etc. Thats part of the reason why the are are industrial sectors in every 1st and 2nd world country. - You can't build in certain areas because the satellite is doing you surveying. It can scan for stability, watch weather, look at wild life patterns. Lot less luck. - Ridiculous doesn't even begin to describe how bad the line majority thing is lol But to your credit there are a lot of thematic misses including: - From a cost and efficiency perspective it would be pretty stupid to move food (and most materials) from one planet to another. - There is now conceivable way that you'd set a satellite to move from a planet to another, you'd just build another one when you got there. - I agree on the goal cards, and we've removed a few and toyed with making them all the same points. Also as a bonus we play generous mode but if you do both numbers then you get both bonuses. SO for example if the first bonus is 7 and the second is 11 and you get 18 or more you get both bonuses.
@@patric7 Yes but that is not a good indication of a rule that is unlike most other euros that use names instead. It's a very unintuitive icon and bad design.
We play with goal cards as public knowledge. I missed them being hidden (is it in the rulebook?) Would always play it as open knowledge. Easier goal cards score fewer points and harder goal cards have a higher ceiling, usually. Action cards have generally lower progress numbers than just tucking the card. The meaty decision to go with the card vs tucking is really fun. There is depth of strategy that comes from choosing the best timing and order to maximise scores. When someone scores 108 points on their first game and another person scores 18, doing the same things in different order, you realise the extreme depth of strategy. It's not down to swinginess but down to skill.
Open or closed, they're still a massive deal. I don't care what goal cards you have necessarily, but at least it removes a bit of the shock value at the end. The action cards are swingy and this is shared among many. Yes the game needs skill and has a skill ceiling, it's not a total luck fest. But you can't ignore what the dictionary definition of "drawing cards randomly from a deck" means in a game that takes 3 hours to play where actions are tight.
@@TheBrokenMeeple Drawing to seven cards at the start of each round is a really good mitigation. Tucking a card is rarely strictly worse than playing a card action, either. Progress track benefits can be really really good. Getting one extra production in all three resources one round earlier than others is huge.
The 7 cards helps at first, but even that might not be enough. One game, a player never saw a high power level card or one that gave a Settle action. So while we're doing settles left right and centre with added benefits and high power levels, she's on the basic version if she wants to do it and forced to do the subpar board action for some high power ratings. Her progress track advancement was slow. Swings and roundabouts, but if my main Euro heavy games group were to play again we'd ditch the cards for more agency over our actions.
@@TheBrokenMeeple I really think they’re undervaluing the option of just tucking cards. The rulebook doesn’t help, because the way it is written obscures how to correctly think about the game (I actually think the rulebook is often antithetical to the game itself - really poorly organised). It does not mention that card actions, especially with multiple effects, generally come at a cost of needing to settle for low power levels. Good players tuck plenty of cards just to keep satellite progression going. I think of the tucking as the default option, unless a card is worth it for my current situation. If one thinks of the card actions as the default, it will lead to random constraints.
Paul Grogan thinks your review of this game is pure nonsense and factually incorrect. lol! I want to thank you for helping me save money again. The ceaseless overhype of anything new is highly disturbing.
I think it is misunderstanding of the game, based on not sticking with it for long enough to be playing with non-noobs (who all tried it three times to actually learn it). But then again, I also think the supposed randomness of Brass Birmingham hand of cards is not an issue. And I don't think Barrage is particularly mean. So some opinions just tend to diverge.
Yeah, I mean, go figure I never got anything from DG in the past! ;-) But I skimmed through a bunch of reviews on CZcams tonight for experimentation - every single one was 7.5's plus. EVERY SINGLE ONE. Even games barely even heard of or worth a damn.
The obvious comparison in my mind is with Space Station Phoenix; a game where players start with a fleet of ships - giving actions - but which are disassembled to build the space station - unlocking other benefits. But it seems that SSP came out at the wrong time, as I rarely here it mentioned anywhere.
Yeah I know the one you mean, but heard so little about it, only the usual who say everything is good in general always. I've seen no one outside of CZcams playing it at all so it can't be all that.
Whether it was the wrong theme, or the wrong price, or the wrong time, Space Station Phoenix just didn't get much attention - and I have seen only a couple of copies "in the wild" (one of which got a mug of coffee knocked over it). The BG rating is 7.4 - good, but not great - which accords with my own thoughts on the game.@@TheBrokenMeeple
Great video Luke, and a very honest review. Before I start, I must say I am still to play this game. I picked it up at Essen due to the hype and the fact I loved Underwater Cities, I did however hate woodcraft. Even without playing, this will never score higher than a 7 due to the component quality when you consider the expense. The look and component quality feel dated, games have moved on, the look of this hasn’t. Before I get shade from all this games’s fanboys, I don’t always agree with Luke, in fact I often enjoy games he doesn’t, Expeditions and Brass Birmingham to name a few. BUT, the complexity level and general bland feeling of this makes me wonder if it’s worth the effort to learn it? Maybe one to go straight to the move on pile? Thanks again Luke.
@@TheBrokenMeeple I'm not a big fan of Suchy's. For example, I always thought Prodigal's Club was a total mess, and tedious to setup. Underwater Cities is way too procedural and has too much upkeep in production phase. I thought it was an OK design. Pulsar and Evacuation are two games I'll keep. Never tried Praga. Evacuation also felt disappointing For the first two games. But I changed my mind about the game balance after rethinking/learning how to play this one well.
Yeah, this was on my list initially, but not anymore. Seems Suchy is more miss than hit. Also didn’t care for praga or pulsar. I got Messina for $10 and have not played it yet. UC is not going to be matched, let alone topped.
On a different matter, why am I able to put this video on a "mini YT" (as in it's own little window and do other stuff with the phone) but cannot with other vids? I don't have YT premium.
Great review Luke. Thank you so much. I am such a Space fan (NOT Star Wars particularly). So, I was interested but all other reviews didn't make sense to me. I felt in fact that this would be boring for me to play and is also not really a looker either. I will stick to Underwater Cities (AND its expansion, which is excellent).
I try to pre-order one game from each year's essen releases, and this one looked to have the most promise, but i cancelled the preorder before it shipped (leaving me with no new game this year), after looking into it a bit more. The concept and setting for Evacuation is top tier and hooked me in, but the more i saw of playthroughs the more started to fear many of the things you highlight here. Mainly fiddly rules exceptions, lack of thematic integration, and bland components and graphic design. Good to hear your thoughts. I align with you a fair amount in terms of preferences, so this video confirms for me that i probably dodged a bullet :)
Building in lines for more points, the progress track in general, power levels of actions and having to line them up exactly for a bonus card........ 😵💫
@@TheBrokenMeeple Sure there are less thematic elements in there, but it’s still not too far fetched to think of it as an efficiency bonus (more production or development).
I’m not saying one can’t have bad rng but I’m not understanding how it can be that bad. Btw I think the strict version should be used with advanced actions but that’s me. Just curious if your following the rules correctly or have an earlier edition, because any action card played whether down or up is discarded at the end of the turn you then draw back up to 4 cards or sometimes discard down to 4 cards. Also whether strict or generous if you go over a number you don’t get it, if you drop two 6 power, yeah you’ll progress along the progression but you will most likely miss the year end bonuses. Between having to pay energy, bonuses and the constant discard and draw I don’t know how one could get that bad of rng that they were unable to progress along the track and one player just dominated. Without hard data it sounds like people got frustrated and then only remembered a negative. I agree with some of your other points however, production is not great and the iconography, yeah it is difficult at times. I also agree I think the game didn’t quite know what to do, go lighter, go heavier or modulate it all. Honestly I think this game is better solo than multiplayer and I wish more euros would start moving towards group progression less individual solitaire. For example if i play something and score points it now creates a game state where others can capitalize on it in addition to myself, like the new Scholars of the south Tigris or many vital Lacerda games. Oh, and to answer your one question in the rules it states as you get closer to the new planet you are able to communicate with the higher altitudes via your computer hence why you can’t colonize an area until you pass a marker.
Again, agree 100%. This was a horrid experience with 4 new players, taking for ages. AP inducing, heavy rules, wonkiness, everything and the kitchen sink stuffed in. I'm also a huge fan of UC and Pulsar. I've played all of Suchys games since Last Will (except Prodigals and the new Shipyard), and I've been let down by all the others. Not really looking forward to them anymore...
3.5 with 3 new players - it's going to vary but 2.5 is not a typical run through time for new players unless efficiency is out the window. However time length aside, the game does have a lot of wonkyness to it. UC And Pulsar work best for me.
Maybe it tells more about my tase than about the game, but I like its look :) I really feel the rush, that we need to leave our home planet soon, we need to buold and use spaceships. I am an eurogamer, this is more than enough for me :)
It currently sits at a 6 for me, and I can't see myself wanting to play this over Pulsar, but I will hold on to it for a while to see. Regarding the building cards, there is an exclamation mark on the cards there are multiples of in order to make it a bit easier to avoid breaking the rule about not building equal cards.
There is but it's not intuitive at all. It's not that there is no indication it's that the indication is terrible. Would you know it meant that if you saw the card and forgot the rule?
@@TheBrokenMeeple Nope, I didn't say it is good enough in this day and age, just that it is something 😄 In general I agree that the game is unnecessarily hard to play because og lacking iconography. The iron requirement for settling is even worse imho.
I had evacuation in my cart a couple times, but have to agree that the game misses in too many places (e.g. there are card and player board printing mistakes). Not enough care was taken. Now that I hear the action cards are swingy, I will pass. I would rather play Underwater Cities (with its tight solo mode).
They're not swingy. Respectfully, Luke does not understand Evacuation. The game is much much better than Underwater Cities, which I've sold soon after starting to love Evacuation. The action cards are just meant to be extra options instead of tucking cards. They offer more effects but at a severe cost of a lower power number. One should tuck around half of the cards anyway, so what is written on them doesn't matter very much for good play. Eventually something you're interested in cycles into your hand. This is an amazing design that rewards patience to learn it properly over multiple games. Lots of hidden depth in the long run. I would safely ignore the review. I mean, he thinks Barrage and Brass Birmingham are poor designs. Enough said.
I think you were a bit hard on the game in some respects - imho colorblind and graphic design issues are not as bad as you stated and there is enough player interaction with settling and progress track to make multiplayer worth it. But I agree that goal cards are overweighted in scoring and strategic variation is lacking. In the end it’s not a keeper for me because while a solid design, it is an exercise in stress by its very nature. The game has to be super tight and punishing because if you ever get “good” at it, you basicallly solve it, which is even worse.
The interaction is barebone, no more than any other indirect Euro aspect of, you took my spot. And it's so rare that the progress track results in any blocking element especially with a tech that ignores other people. I stand by the poor graphic design though in general. Exactly how is the game colour blind friendly?
Right, the room to get better and better and to discover new things is immense... but obscured on the first few plays. Which is pretty much optimal if you are committed to playing six times minimum, and deferring judgement.
After Last Will/Prodigal's Club I thought I was a Suchy fan. While Pulsar is a pretty good game, everything else I find fine, but the puzzles just don't cohere. I give the game a 6, and I think I'm done anticipating his games.
My scores went from 32 to 49 to 94 and then another 94 (but I've seen 108). At no point did it feel like luck or swinginess determined anything. It felt very finely balanced. And the limiting factor was player skill and time needed for learning. To solve a tough sudoku can take four hours of being stuck. Evacuation is a sandboxy puzzle that frustrates in order to delight in the long run. I've seen success through heavy tech-investment, low tech-investment, wiping the offers, not wiping the offers, focusing on pre-fabbing, only using shipped factories, transporting the starting stadium, not transporting the starting stadium, getting five stadiums to maximise happy faces etc. So many different builds. The depth is incredible. And I think it is one of the most thematically immersive games I've ever played.
I'm sorry, "thematically immersive"? That's a very low bar of thematic integration when we're talking about progress tracks and diagonal lining up infrastructures.
Also come on, how is "wiping the offers" considered a variance in strategy and depth? Really? You've opened a massive world in other Euro games if that's a contender for long term strategic depth. That's a means to an end if you don't like what you see, not a strategy to winning the game. Same goes for transporting the starting stadium, you either do it or you don't (so that's 4 of those listed "strategies" gone), usually you might as well as getting a lot of stadiums is mostly pointless anyway especially with the pitiful end game scoring for it.
@@TheBrokenMeeple The overall feeling of the game is super-thematic (separate resources on two planets, timing the transferral from one place to the other without hamstringing your logistics, choosing how many ships to run and when, and whether to return them, losing extra points for population left behind at the end). What you are doing is to nitpick about a few eurogame-y scoring rules that are not thematic. One could do that with Lacerda games like On Mars (and most thematic heavy euro board games). It does not affect my immersion with the theme in any way. If stadiums are a public objective, racing for them is a nice move. Generally, those non-thematic rules nudge players to try different things on different plays. It’s all positive, and I would include everything listed on the scorepad (no reason to fret about which variant to go for),
Thank you for addressing color blind issues in your reviews!
I try my best though I'm not colour blind myself I know people who are.
This is a 8 for me. We greatly enjoyed the brain burn. It feels a bit rough around the edges but the basic concept is fascinating to me. I think one expansion would easily push this to greatness. Suchy can do it. This is a diamond in the rough and I hope it gets the polish it deserves. My favorite Spiel from Essen this year. Also, I 100% adore how small the box is. This is a HUGE game packed into a SMALL box. I appreciate that!
Fair enough! I do feel some cleanup is an order but expansions don't tend to clean/streamline things, only make them more fiddly or bloated.
I wonder if there's any house rules that could fix the action card issues
@@Drumox A face up display could possibly help, then you could at least have a choice out of many for your next card.
If I’m remembering the designer notes they wanted something lighter and easier after the last few but then because of abrupt endings and lighter affair they added the modules for added complexity which as a consumer I really appreciate, however as stated in the review it makes it a bit of a mixed bag and some of it feels tacked on. I will say I prefer modules in the base game rather than expansions but I want balance and seemlessly integration not let’s see what works
I haven't gotten to a rating yet but 8 feels right for me with points mode, advanced cards, public objectives and generous bonuses.
I will respectfully disagree here. Vladimir Suchy is one of the premier designers in the hobby and, with this game, he has shown his growth as a designer, possibly creating the only game to rival his previous classic Underwater Cities. The game is complex and very, very deep. Almost Lacerda level and so, is not for everyone. As a solo gamer, I especially appreciate how he can make such streamlined and simple solo modes for fairly heavy games. Very similar to Rosenberg's solo modes. It took me several plays to even begin to formulate ways of finding winning strategies. I am amazed at the genius level thought process that went into this design and what it must have required to balance it. BTW, he also released another game this year, Alderbaren Duel, that is also very fun and worth checking out. It is very similar to Race for the Galaxy, but more accessible without losing the depth or decision space.
Complexity (for sake of complexity) and depth alone doesn't make a complete package though. Uwc is far more enjoyable and smoother.
I'm not disagreeing with you here but BYOS solos are by nature streamlined and much easier to create. If you have a good game puzzle, sometimes BYOS is enough.
@@nirszi That is a fair point. And here they make the target score too dam high to be enjoyable.
@@TheBrokenMeeple I agree with your assessment of UC. However, I (and this is certainly meant as no offense to you personally, Luke) also think that "complexity for the sake of" might be the most overused term in board gaming. In no way do I believe a good designer thinks to himself, how can I create the most complex and difficult game to learn just because I can. But, good designers do often challenge themselves and build on previous ideas with each new design and this often results in deeper and more complex games (see Garphill as another example of this).
Agreed.
The settle human action literally says on the action that it costs a steel. Look closer.
That one I've acknowledged was there, albeit printed very small, it's not on the board at all but that one I can let go of, still leaves all the others though.
The action cards are not swingy. The best ones give very low progress. The bad ones give a bit more progress. I tend to play the low progress cards. But tucking around half of cards just to get progress is a great way to play well. I don't think the complaints/flaws will irk people who patiently try it three or four times. In fact, I can't consider them as flaws at all, in the long run.
If a player gets better action cards with multiple actions vs someone resorting to having to use the basic actions, that in itself is an advantage to that player. The cards are not worse than the basic actions. And given you only have to get equal to or less than the bonus power levels (as playing on strict mode is just ridiculous AP inducing), the odd variance here and there doesn't come into play much.
Whether you guys enjoy this game or not, if anybody is looking for a similar experience, the game space station phoenix is really quite good. It has a similar 'dismantle here to build there' aspect, theme, price point, and even color pallet. I've never played evacuation so I can't say just how similar, but it might give the same feel with a little less fiddle. Lots of table space needed though
Space Station Phoenix is much better than Evacuation for me, thats a 9, with the only real issues for me being some fiddliness and the fact its a huge table hog.
Underwater Cities is one of my favorite games, so every year after it was published I eagerly await Suchy's next game to see if it will be as good as that. And I wait, and I wait, and needless to say, I am still waiting. Oh, well, we will always have UC!
Cheers for the great video.
Thanks!! I doubt that day will come.
I'm in the same boat love UC so much and it's so good really kinda hope he does a design that takes some of the stuff from UC and maybe changes it up a little, I can hope :)
After three games of Evacuation, I sold Underwater Cities with no regrets. I had a fully sleeved copy of UC with the expansion and green biodome (it just doesn't have as many juicy/tough decisions). Evacuation is So much better (although it took me a few games to warm to it).
@@nkorppiUC is plus 8 rating for a reason. After 6 years. Evacuation ratings will only continue going down. Very unlikely it even maintains a 7 rating after a year out.
@@shatnershairpiece Unclear. It really does matter either way. Some games are fast food and easy to grok on first play. Other games are here for those who like to savour a good challenge. Same with Weather Machine. Could not care less if the rating goes up or down. However, high rating or low rating has no correlation with Luke's tastes. Brass Birmingham isn't exactly a marmite game? It doesn't matter.
Agree on Evacuation. A clumsy, awkward design - his worst. Needed to streamline and remove the finicky play
Yeah , so many people so forgiving on that game.
I really like this one, it is very challenging while not being very hard to learn, and I like games like that. Seems like again it will be hard for you to get to a top 10 of the year. Is it me or are you getting more and more critical with age =).
Actually this year it will be easy to find ten as there have been some decent stuff, more than 2022. Already got a draft.
i was really super excited for the theme, and the wreck-it-rebuild-it twist on engine building euro, but everything you said that's bad about it, from the mechanics, to the components, is spot on and very disappointing. Even to the point where the baggies you get are super thin and cheap. couldn't even put nicer baggies in. I opened this game right after opening Raising Robots which came with nice baggies, but also a set of card sleeves. the difference was stark.
To bad, this game got my attention, but after this is like, mmmh, there is many other games to buy first. Nice review, this style of being very critic and honest, really like your take on the games.
Thanks for the kind words! Yeah someone has to be honest these days as I feel like that word is lost in the industry.
The lack of thematic justification for rules rather reminds me of Jay (3 minute board games) criticism of On mars. He used a phrase 'because game' to describe rules that had no thematic explanation. I especially agree on micro rules, as they are so easy to forget, especially if they're not thematically obvious.
I do like the basic premise, but it does feel like too many standard euro tropes were applied to the gameplay in terms of bonuses / objectives, and they bring a blandness that detracts from the central 'evacuation / new world' concept. It's a trait that's becoming worryingly common, where commonly used game mechanisms are shoe-horned into games irrespective of theme, and the overall vibe becomes rather like a 'now that's what I call boardgaming' compilation.
The theme here just feels like an after thought in some areas - the whole progress track is just literally a random mechanic thrown in. The bonus card, has no reason to be there.
I’m sensing a pattern here, Luke is, contrary to many board game reviewers, not giving passing grades as a default to every single new game that comes out, he’s anti cult of the new but not intentionally, seems he’s got a critical mind that can’t be shut off.
It's called being a critic and not the "Everything is Awesome" lego movie trope! ;-)
I find the review scores very very random to be honest. This game was okay, but quite lacked replayability, but i dont agree with the most of the criticisms in the vid.
@@cwaddle nothing random about it. The good things I like are balanced with the stuff I don't. Aesthetics are eye of the beholder for sure but the dodgy graphic design is a common shared opinion. And I'm not the only one on the comments who stated the big problem with the action cards variant.
I stopped watching these reviews because I feel like they’re like the one guy on Rotten Tomatoes that gives a negative review just to get views and then praises something that’s below average for the same reason. I’m watching and commenting on it so I guess it works. He’s getting views and standing out. I mean I suppose the game could be a 5 even though there are at least 5 contributors to the community that say this is the best game of the year.
@@johnhansel5379 so because a few people say it's the best game ever that means it must be right? Think hard about what you're implying there. And no, I do not give verdicts just to get views. And giving a praise video in general usually gets less views anyway so giving a bad game a good review wouldn't fit your attack either. By your reckoning anyone who critics anything is just after views which means every review you watch has to be super positive. For that Rahdo, Thinker and DT are just around the corner.
It's called giving an honest opinion without bias to games, publishers and designers. Which is a far cry from the usual "everything is awesome" mentality that many other content creators use. And people are glad of it.
Excellent review, thanks!
I agree 100% with your review and the various points raised. I played Evacuation and was really irritated by some of the glorifying reviews. The game is average at best and has some major issues. Your review perfectly nailed it and that’s the key reason why I watch your stuff !! A voice of reason amongst the useless cheerleaders out there…
Thank you!!! Certainly I've taken some flack from a few Suchy fanboys but stand my ground!
@@TheBrokenMeeple I really loved the general theme behind it and the idea with the two planets and the split resource pools. But that’s where it stops and the rest of the implementation is just fiddly, flawed and mostly annoying. I assume many got blinded by the exciting theme and overlook the issues. But similar to you, I can’t either. What a pity, so much potential wasted !
@@a-c-m Euro gamers like anything complex from their favourite designers.
Don’t think it makes sense to have favourite designers. Most don’t manage to have more than 1-2 really outstanding game designs. The reason why many still follow them individually is called the “halo effect”, which is a cognitive bias.
I would recommend playing again. More than any other game, my opinion on this went from "meh" to "wow" over around five games (full VP mode). I'm so glad I kept at it.
I appreciate your thoughts, Luke. Thank you.
I always enjoy trying Suchy designs as I think he tries to innovate in a dry-euro space, but I am concerned for this one. I enjoy the solid Messina, but found it lacked substantial innovation. I thought I would enjoy Woodcraft more, but I found the (more) innovative mechanisms to fall short in how the game came together. I understand it is a difficult balance, but it seems he has not hit that magic mark for the past couple of years. Granted, those two were co-designs.. I still look forward to trying this, but I fear you are right; that Evacuation needed more development time.
I know Delicious Games is his title/company, so I imagine the pressure to release titles in order to generate income from year to year is a primary goal; I cannot fault someone for that. It is unfortunate that this can get in the way of greater final products.
The rush to get games out by all designers and publishers is the same outcome as the video game industry. 😔
I was really excited for Evacuation because I like Underwater Cities, I like Vladimír Suchý, but at this point, I sat through two pretty long rule explaination videos and read some of the rulebook (found two little mistranslations already) and was going to play the solo mode to get a feel for it... but at this point, I'll just stop. This is WORK, and the thought of fighting through the solo mode of this fiddly, unfocused thing doesn't excite me any more.
Solo really isn't worth it.
I'm still deciding if your channel is for me. I love yoru no holds barred approach to reviews, tho i don't know that our tastes align. And I should also preface that while I own Evacuation, it's not a sunk cost idea for me. I buy and trade too many games to get caught up in thinking a game is good because I bought it. But I find some of you criticisms here to be off base. A number of them are pretty fair tho. A couple of examples:
- I don't hate the graphic design. I don't love it but it connects for me.
- The fact you need a steel to settle a population is on your player board.
- Building similar plants/factories near each other lets you take advantage of economies of scale for infrastructure. Things like power, water and sewage/ waste disposal, etc. Thats part of the reason why the are are industrial sectors in every 1st and 2nd world country.
- You can't build in certain areas because the satellite is doing you surveying. It can scan for stability, watch weather, look at wild life patterns. Lot less luck.
- Ridiculous doesn't even begin to describe how bad the line majority thing is lol
But to your credit there are a lot of thematic misses including:
- From a cost and efficiency perspective it would be pretty stupid to move food (and most materials) from one planet to another.
- There is now conceivable way that you'd set a satellite to move from a planet to another, you'd just build another one when you got there.
- I agree on the goal cards, and we've removed a few and toyed with making them all the same points.
Also as a bonus we play generous mode but if you do both numbers then you get both bonuses. SO for example if the first bonus is 7 and the second is 11 and you get 18 or more you get both bonuses.
The steel thing is the one thing I go back on as it is technically there. But the others, I still stand by.
there is a very clear UI on the player board telling you to pay steel while settling population
That one I've allowed, I do wish it was on the main board but as small as that icon is it is technically there . However all the other issues remain
Do you know the exclamation mark on some infrastructure cards?
@@patric7 Yes but that is not a good indication of a rule that is unlike most other euros that use names instead. It's a very unintuitive icon and bad design.
We play with goal cards as public knowledge. I missed them being hidden (is it in the rulebook?) Would always play it as open knowledge. Easier goal cards score fewer points and harder goal cards have a higher ceiling, usually. Action cards have generally lower progress numbers than just tucking the card. The meaty decision to go with the card vs tucking is really fun. There is depth of strategy that comes from choosing the best timing and order to maximise scores. When someone scores 108 points on their first game and another person scores 18, doing the same things in different order, you realise the extreme depth of strategy. It's not down to swinginess but down to skill.
Open or closed, they're still a massive deal. I don't care what goal cards you have necessarily, but at least it removes a bit of the shock value at the end. The action cards are swingy and this is shared among many. Yes the game needs skill and has a skill ceiling, it's not a total luck fest. But you can't ignore what the dictionary definition of "drawing cards randomly from a deck" means in a game that takes 3 hours to play where actions are tight.
@@TheBrokenMeeple Drawing to seven cards at the start of each round is a really good mitigation. Tucking a card is rarely strictly worse than playing a card action, either. Progress track benefits can be really really good. Getting one extra production in all three resources one round earlier than others is huge.
The 7 cards helps at first, but even that might not be enough. One game, a player never saw a high power level card or one that gave a Settle action. So while we're doing settles left right and centre with added benefits and high power levels, she's on the basic version if she wants to do it and forced to do the subpar board action for some high power ratings. Her progress track advancement was slow.
Swings and roundabouts, but if my main Euro heavy games group were to play again we'd ditch the cards for more agency over our actions.
@@TheBrokenMeeple I really think they’re undervaluing the option of just tucking cards. The rulebook doesn’t help, because the way it is written obscures how to correctly think about the game (I actually think the rulebook is often antithetical to the game itself - really poorly organised). It does not mention that card actions, especially with multiple effects, generally come at a cost of needing to settle for low power levels. Good players tuck plenty of cards just to keep satellite progression going. I think of the tucking as the default option, unless a card is worth it for my current situation. If one thinks of the card actions as the default, it will lead to random constraints.
Great review. Good information. I had already picked mine up before watching this because I'll like this, but great video.
Considering that my favourite game is black angel, a game which is hated by everyone, I'm simply glad i got this one now.
Paul Grogan thinks your review of this game is pure nonsense and factually incorrect. lol! I want to thank you for helping me save money again. The ceaseless overhype of anything new is highly disturbing.
Paul always disagrees with my points ✌️😅 he was correct on one micro point which I've already acknowledged but that's not good enough apparently. 😁
I think it is misunderstanding of the game, based on not sticking with it for long enough to be playing with non-noobs (who all tried it three times to actually learn it). But then again, I also think the supposed randomness of Brass Birmingham hand of cards is not an issue. And I don't think Barrage is particularly mean. So some opinions just tend to diverge.
Paul is right this time.
It is getting annoying that majority of "reviewers" hype every game up just because they want more free stuff.
Yeah, I mean, go figure I never got anything from DG in the past! ;-) But I skimmed through a bunch of reviews on CZcams tonight for experimentation - every single one was 7.5's plus. EVERY SINGLE ONE. Even games barely even heard of or worth a damn.
@@TheBrokenMeeple and that is why you are my favorite reviewer. I just know you will give a honest opinion....regardless of the consequences 💪😎😁
The obvious comparison in my mind is with Space Station Phoenix; a game where players start with a fleet of ships - giving actions - but which are disassembled to build the space station - unlocking other benefits. But it seems that SSP came out at the wrong time, as I rarely here it mentioned anywhere.
Yeah I know the one you mean, but heard so little about it, only the usual who say everything is good in general always. I've seen no one outside of CZcams playing it at all so it can't be all that.
Whether it was the wrong theme, or the wrong price, or the wrong time, Space Station Phoenix just didn't get much attention - and I have seen only a couple of copies "in the wild" (one of which got a mug of coffee knocked over it).
The BG rating is 7.4 - good, but not great - which accords with my own thoughts on the game.@@TheBrokenMeeple
Great video Luke, and a very honest review. Before I start, I must say I am still to play this game. I picked it up at Essen due to the hype and the fact I loved Underwater Cities, I did however hate woodcraft. Even without playing, this will never score higher than a 7 due to the component quality when you consider the expense. The look and component quality feel dated, games have moved on, the look of this hasn’t. Before I get shade from all this games’s fanboys, I don’t always agree with Luke, in fact I often enjoy games he doesn’t, Expeditions and Brass Birmingham to name a few. BUT, the complexity level and general bland feeling of this makes me wonder if it’s worth the effort to learn it? Maybe one to go straight to the move on pile? Thanks again Luke.
You're welcome mate! :-)
Evacuation is Easily the most beautiful design by Suchy. And I don't mean art style, but the beauty of the mechanisms.
@@nkorppi If I bump the rating to a six will you give me half the paycheck from him? 😅
@@TheBrokenMeepleLOL.
@@TheBrokenMeeple I'm not a big fan of Suchy's. For example, I always thought Prodigal's Club was a total mess, and tedious to setup. Underwater Cities is way too procedural and has too much upkeep in production phase. I thought it was an OK design. Pulsar and Evacuation are two games I'll keep. Never tried Praga. Evacuation also felt disappointing For the first two games. But I changed my mind about the game balance after rethinking/learning how to play this one well.
I agree the art and graphic design are again a miss.
The components are bad quality.
The game is good though...
Yeah, this was on my list initially, but not anymore. Seems Suchy is more miss than hit. Also didn’t care for praga or pulsar. I got Messina for $10 and have not played it yet. UC is not going to be matched, let alone topped.
For 10 bucks it's worth a play but it's nothing special.
Pulsar to me is one of his best.
Great review. Do you have a video review of Pulsar 2849? I couldn't find one, but maybe it is in one with other games.
I haven't done a review specially on it I don't think, unless it's an old one. But it gets mentioned on Top 100.
On a different matter, why am I able to put this video on a "mini YT" (as in it's own little window and do other stuff with the phone) but cannot with other vids?
I don't have YT premium.
Hmmm, odd, no idea!
I find that it's random whether you can do that or not with any video regardless of the channel
Thanks Luke
Great review Luke. Thank you so much. I am such a Space fan (NOT Star Wars particularly). So, I was interested but all other reviews didn't make sense to me. I felt in fact that this would be boring for me to play and is also not really a looker either. I will stick to Underwater Cities (AND its expansion, which is excellent).
My pleasure!
I try to pre-order one game from each year's essen releases, and this one looked to have the most promise, but i cancelled the preorder before it shipped (leaving me with no new game this year), after looking into it a bit more.
The concept and setting for Evacuation is top tier and hooked me in, but the more i saw of playthroughs the more started to fear many of the things you highlight here. Mainly fiddly rules exceptions, lack of thematic integration, and bland components and graphic design.
Good to hear your thoughts. I align with you a fair amount in terms of preferences, so this video confirms for me that i probably dodged a bullet :)
I believe you did ✌️ thanks!!
What? This is a very thematic euro?
Building in lines for more points, the progress track in general, power levels of actions and having to line them up exactly for a bonus card........ 😵💫
@@TheBrokenMeeple Sure there are less thematic elements in there, but it’s still not too far fetched to think of it as an efficiency bonus (more production or development).
I’m not saying one can’t have bad rng but I’m not understanding how it can be that bad. Btw I think the strict version should be used with advanced actions but that’s me. Just curious if your following the rules correctly or have an earlier edition, because any action card played whether down or up is discarded at the end of the turn you then draw back up to 4 cards or sometimes discard down to 4 cards. Also whether strict or generous if you go over a number you don’t get it, if you drop two 6 power, yeah you’ll progress along the progression but you will most likely miss the year end bonuses. Between having to pay energy, bonuses and the constant discard and draw I don’t know how one could get that bad of rng that they were unable to progress along the track and one player just dominated.
Without hard data it sounds like people got frustrated and then only remembered a negative.
I agree with some of your other points however, production is not great and the iconography, yeah it is difficult at times.
I also agree I think the game didn’t quite know what to do, go lighter, go heavier or modulate it all.
Honestly I think this game is better solo than multiplayer and I wish more euros would start moving towards group progression less individual solitaire. For example if i play something and score points it now creates a game state where others can capitalize on it in addition to myself, like the new Scholars of the south Tigris or many vital Lacerda games.
Oh, and to answer your one question in the rules it states as you get closer to the new planet you are able to communicate with the higher altitudes via your computer hence why you can’t colonize an area until you pass a marker.
Again, agree 100%. This was a horrid experience with 4 new players, taking for ages. AP inducing, heavy rules, wonkiness, everything and the kitchen sink stuffed in.
I'm also a huge fan of UC and Pulsar. I've played all of Suchys games since Last Will (except Prodigals and the new Shipyard), and I've been let down by all the others. Not really looking forward to them anymore...
Our first 4p game took 2.5 hours with 3 new players.
3.5 with 3 new players - it's going to vary but 2.5 is not a typical run through time for new players unless efficiency is out the window. However time length aside, the game does have a lot of wonkyness to it. UC And Pulsar work best for me.
My favourite Suchy-game is still UC, but Evacuation could be the second - I found it thematic, beautiful, interesting and different enough.
@@bagodani beautiful? 😵💫 And where is the theme exactly?
Maybe it tells more about my tase than about the game, but I like its look :) I really feel the rush, that we need to leave our home planet soon, we need to buold and use spaceships. I am an eurogamer, this is more than enough for me :)
It currently sits at a 6 for me, and I can't see myself wanting to play this over Pulsar, but I will hold on to it for a while to see.
Regarding the building cards, there is an exclamation mark on the cards there are multiples of in order to make it a bit easier to avoid breaking the rule about not building equal cards.
There is but it's not intuitive at all. It's not that there is no indication it's that the indication is terrible. Would you know it meant that if you saw the card and forgot the rule?
@@TheBrokenMeeple Nope, I didn't say it is good enough in this day and age, just that it is something 😄
In general I agree that the game is unnecessarily hard to play because og lacking iconography. The iron requirement for settling is even worse imho.
I had evacuation in my cart a couple times, but have to agree that the game misses in too many places (e.g. there are card and player board printing mistakes). Not enough care was taken. Now that I hear the action cards are swingy, I will pass. I would rather play Underwater Cities (with its tight solo mode).
They're not swingy. Respectfully, Luke does not understand Evacuation. The game is much much better than Underwater Cities, which I've sold soon after starting to love Evacuation. The action cards are just meant to be extra options instead of tucking cards. They offer more effects but at a severe cost of a lower power number. One should tuck around half of the cards anyway, so what is written on them doesn't matter very much for good play. Eventually something you're interested in cycles into your hand. This is an amazing design that rewards patience to learn it properly over multiple games. Lots of hidden depth in the long run. I would safely ignore the review. I mean, he thinks Barrage and Brass Birmingham are poor designs. Enough said.
I think you were a bit hard on the game in some respects - imho colorblind and graphic design issues are not as bad as you stated and there is enough player interaction with settling and progress track to make multiplayer worth it. But I agree that goal cards are overweighted in scoring and strategic variation is lacking. In the end it’s not a keeper for me because while a solid design, it is an exercise in stress by its very nature. The game has to be super tight and punishing because if you ever get “good” at it, you basicallly solve it, which is even worse.
The interaction is barebone, no more than any other indirect Euro aspect of, you took my spot. And it's so rare that the progress track results in any blocking element especially with a tech that ignores other people.
I stand by the poor graphic design though in general. Exactly how is the game colour blind friendly?
Each resource type has different types of circles around them to differentiate them
Right, the room to get better and better and to discover new things is immense... but obscured on the first few plays. Which is pretty much optimal if you are committed to playing six times minimum, and deferring judgement.
After Last Will/Prodigal's Club I thought I was a Suchy fan. While Pulsar is a pretty good game, everything else I find fine, but the puzzles just don't cohere. I give the game a 6, and I think I'm done anticipating his games.
Besides Last will, only two games of Suchy I really love are Shipyard and Messina. I see Messinas flaws, but I just love that stupid game.
UWC is a gem.
UWC and Pulsar for the win, but Last Will was fine. Messina I thought was OK but I wouldn't seek it out.