by CampingRamen
DownforceDesigned by Wolfgang Kramer, Rob Daviau, and Justin D. Jacobson, published 2017
Throughout the history of modern tabletop gaming, great names have stood out, pinpointing the best designers of the time—names like Reiner Knizia, Uwe Rosenberg, Sid Sackson, and innumerable others. Wolfgang Kramer is indelibly part of this great assemblage of designers. I believe he has earned that spot, for he has designed some truly amazing games (examples that stand out to me are 2000's The Princes of Florence, and 1994's Take 5). I can also say with certainty that I have not played enough of Kramer's catalog; from a brief examination of his BGG page, I have only played 3. On the other hand, I feel that the Kramer games I have played have different mechanisms that help to paint a picture of how Mr. Kramer designs board games.
To begin the actual review, I want to say that Downforce is unique among racing games, in that it contains an auction element at the start of the game, to determine who owns which racecars. Players can own more than one, but the person with the most money wins at the end of the game, so players have to ensure that they have strong contenders in the race, without breaking the bank and destroying their path to victory. This is easily my favorite part of Downforce—it creates great tension around the table, forcing you to evaluate the consequences of each possible bid.
Downforce manages to carry most of this momentum into the actual racing phase of the game as well; players will select a card from their hand and move the cars shown on the card the number of spaces depicted. I confess this is not a revolutionary racing mechanic, but it does its job serviceably and is, from my inspection, a well-balanced system. If I'm being honest, the entire Downforce package is well-presented and well-balanced. My major issue with this game—the factor that brings this from a likely 8.5 down to a 6—is how players interact and are likely to interact with this system.
Three lines on the board indicate that a betting phase has been entered once the leading car passes it. All players then secretly place bets on who they believe will take first place in the race. You can bet on any car, but the typical decision made is betting on the leader. This is because others around the table are most likely going to vote for that car too. This creates a herd mentality, as many—if not most—players around the table now have a vested interest in the leading car. The game proceeds, and multiple people will be playing cards attempting to strengthen the leader's gap, and the typically bombastic theme of auto racing ends with a fizzle, not a bang. It is this mentality that hurts this game in the end.
That's my main issue with Downforce; the tension build-up in the auction phase and the first third of the racing phase gets wiped out by the collective interests of the players. I'm not saying this is a universal issue, but in my experience, when faced with a potential loss-maker and a probable winner, the player will take the latter. It's a real shame too, as otherwise, Downforce would be a brilliant racing game, but when you have the first half of the game which is brilliantly tense, and the last half feeling more like a resolution of the decisions made in the first, we end up with a mixed bag.