I found that after a couple of play throughs, the AP element started to disappear because I started wrapping my head around the specific end game goals and what they implied. There's developments that can get you a lot of points for shipping grain, tourists, and coal, which means grabbing the developments that produce the one of those you're gunning for. You can try to rush the game by dumping resources into the railhead which means grabbing production of steel, navvies, or lumber. You can go for your industry cards, which directs you to 2-3 specific development types. These all really helped collapse the decision space into something manageable.
This is one I'm willing to push past any "rough edges" because the game and ideas in it are so intriguing. I haven't had the same super-long playtime experience (more around 2-2.5 hours, which seems to be how most any heavy euro runs in my group), but could see how 3-4 hrs. would be a turn-off. With a few games under our belts, the design has really started opening up to us. Excited to play more.
Chiming in as someone who does like the game quite a bit: All of the criticism are true. I was very lucky to be taught the game by the designer rather than learning from the rulebook. There's a few edges that could have used another pass in development. And there's people who I'll never play this with because it would kick their AP into overdrive. But if a group is willing to give it a game or two for the heuristics to kick in, speeding up the decision-making, there's an excellent game to be had here that feels very different from other euros.
I played two 3-player games on TTS, having learned the game from the rulebook, which I found quite clear (so not exactly sure what Tom is talking about, unless it had some major changes during production). It took us about 1h40 for each game. After the explanation, no one had any doubts and we didn't have to look for stuff in the rulebook ever. Very enjoyable game, players compared it favorably to Caylus.
Two minor things: 1) Although turn order breaks ties in many cases, the rules explicitly state that ties are friendly for placing buildings on tiles. 2) The game length is highly strategy-dependent. I have played a very long game where players spent heavily on development and had little left over for the railhead auction, and a much shorter game where several players focused on the railhead and rushed the ending by clearing 3-5 track tiles at a time.
I guess I'm lucky I had no problems with the rule book. I think it's an excellent game with fascinating choices and great player interaction. AP can be a beast with it; so I would only play with certain people. I also don't feel like there are many hinky rules, especially compared to games like John Company or Nemesis, but maybe they seem like hinky rules if you're not connecting with the rulebook. Glad it received a high profile review!
Got shown it as a 4 player game and had several issues. Very long, high random elements for a thinky game, turn order hurting as you said, and how some of the points cards were unbalanced. Trading in corn was so much better than trading in those purple passengers. Also I hated that mechanic where when goods are sold you pick a cube on the train and then go in order or something like that. It's horribly punishing, you can be screwed over out of nothing more than just being unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. And if you fall behind, good luck, there's no way to catch up, very much "rich get richer". Not for me!
Where do you see high random elements? Other than the arrangement of development tiles, random initial turn order, and luck of drawing ally and investment cards, nothing else in the game is outside direct player control. And the development tiles don't really count either since all players have equal access to any combos. I can't think of any "busted" ally cards that would justify your assessment. As for the develop mechanic, I'm not sure if you noticed the tradeoffs at play. Sure, having your goods farther "behind" in the train means you can "draft" off the leaders' develops and maybe snag 2nd place without spending an action. But this isn't an unfair advantage, it's the payoff of a risky gambit. Failing to get your resources loaded first might mean running out of space on the line and having to load them to cars in the yard - and if you're not the coal leader, you're now at the mercy of an opponent and might have to do some horse trading to get them to agree to hitch up your cars. The only way to avoid that fate is to load first - and take the risk of others drafting off your develops. And don't forget that the Portage action is there to ingeniously solve *both problems* - it may be inefficient, but at least no one can draft off you, and you can Portage resources off the yard so you can snap your fingers at anyone trying to play keepaway games with coal. The one criticism I'll agree with is the lack of a catch-up mechanism, especially in 2 player. In 3+, the underdogs can at least collude to block spaces the leader needs, or work together to try to shaft him in the railhead phase. Whether and how much "pick on the leader" should be involved, I think depends a lot on your playgroup. But the track is big enough, and the action economy limited enough, that even at 4 players, and even with a strong runaway leader, the leader can't truly block everyone else from doing stuff. And the combos in the game tend to have fragility that increases proportionately to power. If the leader's strategy is a pickup and deliver loop, say tourists for grain, well, block him! Force him to diversify his holdings. He still only gets three telegrams a turn the same as you.
RE: the train going sideways - Preview copies had a much shorter, more appealing train piece that did go left-to-right. TBH it was the thing that had me most interested, seeing that they got rid of that kills my interest 🤷♀
Disappointed to hear your review. I was super excited to back and receive this game. Unfortunately, I struggled through the rulebook and haven't had the chance to get this to the table yet. Hopefully, I will find that I enjoy this game more than you did. Appreciate your insight!
The game was designed and published by one person, Glen Dresser, who also did the artwork (maybe he should've left the human artwork to another person. It really feels like a passion project though of his. Although he should've probably had a developer or two helping refine the game. However, there were many issues after the KS campaign finished, most notably horrible communication and failing to provide components people paid for (the bags). He was at conventions selling the game, and bags, before KS backers got theirs, so it really rubbed people the wrong way to know they wouldn't get the bags they paid for, yet, he had them but sold them to others at conventions. As a backer, as this game is about the Canadian railroad, I was excited for it, but overall it had become a disappointment and would never back another product from Glen Dresser.
I imagine he lost money from increased shipping and he was self funded beyond the ks. Selling ahead of time to recoup any losses, I can't blame him for
He also clarified that he only sold the bags before it became apparent that they were missing for one region of backers. And I really can't blame someone for selling the game once they have the additional copies after what was likely a significant personal loss in increased freight prices. Still, I agree that post-campaign communication was a mess. And while I'd love to play another game by Glen-the-designer and Glen-the-illustrater, it would definitely need to be someone else on publishing, and ideally also an outside voice on development and rules.
@@tobiaslunte6992 I had no issue with taking the game to cons and selling it. I have issue that he knew about the bags missing BEFORE the conventions, and was selling them there. Pick'n'Pack confirmed they knew they were missing, as did Glen, before the convention. I have issue that backers paid for something, and didn't get the product. Again, was very excited for this product, being Canadian, being about Canada, we get so few games about our country. But Glen's handling of things when something went wrong was radio silence, and then "oh well, tough luck, too bad."
Played this a couple months back. Another game that I put in the kind of amorphous blob of games that aren't bad, but aren't particularly exciting either. Messy setup to be sure, but we didn't have much trouble with it once the game started. The art is terrible and it was very long with 4, too long in fact.
This is not actually the case. That is a misunderstanding on Tom's part. The way the engine is facing represents the direction that it is travelling and is important. A valid gripe would be the that the piece is slightly larger than the space it occupies. In actual play, the front of the engine is moved so that it is touching the line on the edge of the space it occupies and there is no confusion.
Looking at it with no explanation, I would assume the train token would be oriented laterally and would cover two spaces as it moves...if that's not the case and Tom has it right, then, yeah...that's a misstep...and a no go.
@@b-squadhero9698 But there is an explanation with diagrams in the rulebook. The train is clearly oriented West/East and occupies a single space. It's just that the train piece is a little too big, that's all. This is a minor production issue.
The artwork was done by the designer himself. I actually like the way the board and tiles look. The card artwork is unique and I do not dislike it. The video does not do the landscape artwork justice though. It really is gorgeous!
I found that after a couple of play throughs, the AP element started to disappear because I started wrapping my head around the specific end game goals and what they implied. There's developments that can get you a lot of points for shipping grain, tourists, and coal, which means grabbing the developments that produce the one of those you're gunning for. You can try to rush the game by dumping resources into the railhead which means grabbing production of steel, navvies, or lumber. You can go for your industry cards, which directs you to 2-3 specific development types. These all really helped collapse the decision space into something manageable.
This is one I'm willing to push past any "rough edges" because the game and ideas in it are so intriguing. I haven't had the same super-long playtime experience (more around 2-2.5 hours, which seems to be how most any heavy euro runs in my group), but could see how 3-4 hrs. would be a turn-off. With a few games under our belts, the design has really started opening up to us. Excited to play more.
Chiming in as someone who does like the game quite a bit: All of the criticism are true. I was very lucky to be taught the game by the designer rather than learning from the rulebook. There's a few edges that could have used another pass in development. And there's people who I'll never play this with because it would kick their AP into overdrive. But if a group is willing to give it a game or two for the heuristics to kick in, speeding up the decision-making, there's an excellent game to be had here that feels very different from other euros.
I played two 3-player games on TTS, having learned the game from the rulebook, which I found quite clear (so not exactly sure what Tom is talking about, unless it had some major changes during production). It took us about 1h40 for each game. After the explanation, no one had any doubts and we didn't have to look for stuff in the rulebook ever. Very enjoyable game, players compared it favorably to Caylus.
1.40?? You lie
Two minor things: 1) Although turn order breaks ties in many cases, the rules explicitly state that ties are friendly for placing buildings on tiles. 2) The game length is highly strategy-dependent. I have played a very long game where players spent heavily on development and had little left over for the railhead auction, and a much shorter game where several players focused on the railhead and rushed the ending by clearing 3-5 track tiles at a time.
I guess I'm lucky I had no problems with the rule book. I think it's an excellent game with fascinating choices and great player interaction. AP can be a beast with it; so I would only play with certain people. I also don't feel like there are many hinky rules, especially compared to games like John Company or Nemesis, but maybe they seem like hinky rules if you're not connecting with the rulebook. Glad it received a high profile review!
Got shown it as a 4 player game and had several issues. Very long, high random elements for a thinky game, turn order hurting as you said, and how some of the points cards were unbalanced. Trading in corn was so much better than trading in those purple passengers.
Also I hated that mechanic where when goods are sold you pick a cube on the train and then go in order or something like that. It's horribly punishing, you can be screwed over out of nothing more than just being unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. And if you fall behind, good luck, there's no way to catch up, very much "rich get richer".
Not for me!
Where do you see high random elements? Other than the arrangement of development tiles, random initial turn order, and luck of drawing ally and investment cards, nothing else in the game is outside direct player control. And the development tiles don't really count either since all players have equal access to any combos. I can't think of any "busted" ally cards that would justify your assessment.
As for the develop mechanic, I'm not sure if you noticed the tradeoffs at play. Sure, having your goods farther "behind" in the train means you can "draft" off the leaders' develops and maybe snag 2nd place without spending an action. But this isn't an unfair advantage, it's the payoff of a risky gambit. Failing to get your resources loaded first might mean running out of space on the line and having to load them to cars in the yard - and if you're not the coal leader, you're now at the mercy of an opponent and might have to do some horse trading to get them to agree to hitch up your cars. The only way to avoid that fate is to load first - and take the risk of others drafting off your develops. And don't forget that the Portage action is there to ingeniously solve *both problems* - it may be inefficient, but at least no one can draft off you, and you can Portage resources off the yard so you can snap your fingers at anyone trying to play keepaway games with coal.
The one criticism I'll agree with is the lack of a catch-up mechanism, especially in 2 player. In 3+, the underdogs can at least collude to block spaces the leader needs, or work together to try to shaft him in the railhead phase. Whether and how much "pick on the leader" should be involved, I think depends a lot on your playgroup. But the track is big enough, and the action economy limited enough, that even at 4 players, and even with a strong runaway leader, the leader can't truly block everyone else from doing stuff. And the combos in the game tend to have fragility that increases proportionately to power. If the leader's strategy is a pickup and deliver loop, say tourists for grain, well, block him! Force him to diversify his holdings. He still only gets three telegrams a turn the same as you.
Very fun and interesting heavy game from a first time designer, happy to see it getting the exposure it deserves!
RE: the train going sideways - Preview copies had a much shorter, more appealing train piece that did go left-to-right. TBH it was the thing that had me most interested, seeing that they got rid of that kills my interest 🤷♀
The game has a great look. It has an interesting take on worker placement.
Disappointed to hear your review. I was super excited to back and receive this game. Unfortunately, I struggled through the rulebook and haven't had the chance to get this to the table yet. Hopefully, I will find that I enjoy this game more than you did. Appreciate your insight!
I had to watch an hour of Rahdo’s play through before the rule book then made sense. Really quite enjoy this game though.
I really wonder if this should be considered (as is) a 2player only game... It should solve the Ap issue
Thanks. I stopped at "rules book is awful" . Don't got no time for that.
Top 20 game for me.
I was shocked to see that "boardless" setup. Hopefully the developers decide to learn from it and change the setup.
The game was designed and published by one person, Glen Dresser, who also did the artwork (maybe he should've left the human artwork to another person.
It really feels like a passion project though of his. Although he should've probably had a developer or two helping refine the game.
However, there were many issues after the KS campaign finished, most notably horrible communication and failing to provide components people paid for (the bags).
He was at conventions selling the game, and bags, before KS backers got theirs, so it really rubbed people the wrong way to know they wouldn't get the bags they paid for, yet, he had them but sold them to others at conventions.
As a backer, as this game is about the Canadian railroad, I was excited for it, but overall it had become a disappointment and would never back another product from Glen Dresser.
I imagine he lost money from increased shipping and he was self funded beyond the ks. Selling ahead of time to recoup any losses, I can't blame him for
He also clarified that he only sold the bags before it became apparent that they were missing for one region of backers. And I really can't blame someone for selling the game once they have the additional copies after what was likely a significant personal loss in increased freight prices.
Still, I agree that post-campaign communication was a mess. And while I'd love to play another game by Glen-the-designer and Glen-the-illustrater, it would definitely need to be someone else on publishing, and ideally also an outside voice on development and rules.
@@tobiaslunte6992 I had no issue with taking the game to cons and selling it.
I have issue that he knew about the bags missing BEFORE the conventions, and was selling them there. Pick'n'Pack confirmed they knew they were missing, as did Glen, before the convention.
I have issue that backers paid for something, and didn't get the product.
Again, was very excited for this product, being Canadian, being about Canada, we get so few games about our country.
But Glen's handling of things when something went wrong was radio silence, and then "oh well, tough luck, too bad."
Played this a couple months back. Another game that I put in the kind of amorphous blob of games that aren't bad, but aren't particularly exciting either. Messy setup to be sure, but we didn't have much trouble with it once the game started. The art is terrible and it was very long with 4, too long in fact.
Hmm , took the whole video, but I think I don't like that tie . Great job tom
The choo choo train moves *sideways* along a track. 0/10 from me.
This is not actually the case. That is a misunderstanding on Tom's part. The way the engine is facing represents the direction that it is travelling and is important. A valid gripe would be the that the piece is slightly larger than the space it occupies. In actual play, the front of the engine is moved so that it is touching the line on the edge of the space it occupies and there is no confusion.
If it doesn't fit on the space (and it's not slightly larger, it clearly is bigger than the space), it fits sideways. I found it bothersome.
Looking at it with no explanation, I would assume the train token would be oriented laterally and would cover two spaces as it moves...if that's not the case and Tom has it right, then, yeah...that's a misstep...and a no go.
@@b-squadhero9698 But there is an explanation with diagrams in the rulebook. The train is clearly oriented West/East and occupies a single space. It's just that the train piece is a little too big, that's all. This is a minor production issue.
Aesthetically, this looks terrible. What were they thinking?
The artwork was done by the designer himself. I actually like the way the board and tiles look. The card artwork is unique and I do not dislike it. The video does not do the landscape artwork justice though. It really is gorgeous!
it's one of the most beautiful games I own in a collection of over 600 games. It's genuinely a stunner on the table.