Skip to main content

Ticket to Ride: Europe - review

If, like me, you have no interest in the Olympics (or even if you do) you might feel for the need for a distraction - and if you do,  I can heartily recommend the Ticket to Ride board game.

For between two and five players, the game involves building rail routes across Europe. To build the routes you need cards with appropriately coloured wagons, picked up two at a time as a go in the game, and there are various additional considerations to cover, such as a set of specific routes you need to build if you are to have a chance of winning (allocated by randomly selected cards), and a bonus for the player with the longest single route at the end of the game.

The play is an excellent balance of luck (how you build your route is dependent on which cards you pick up) and strategy/tactics, meaning that a good player will usually win, but a less skilled player can win occasionally, so doesn't feel it's pointless to try. You don't have to be interested in trains, by the way - that part is almost incidental - it's effectively about building a network.

To begin with it seems almost impossible to remember everything you are trying to do, but players soon develop strategies that make for a good chance of winning... if it weren't for your opponents. With two taking part there is relatively limited interaction between the players, though even here one will often block the other - with four or five playing, the whole blocking business becomes a major part of the game. If someone gets in your way, you either go round them (and hopefully block them back), or can use a station to piggyback on their line - but this loses you points and means you can't get the longest route.

A two player game typically takes about half an hour, with time increasingly proportionately with number of players. It's addictive and great fun - highly recommended. You can also get other areas of the world, and expansion packs that add extra rules and complications.

Ticket to Ride: Europe is available from amazon.co.uk and amazon.com.
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you  

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense