I love when I can work in Seattle to Helena to Duluth to Toronto on the US map. These paths aren't used as much as many other paths on the board, and it really racks up the points!
Other important concepts: 1) Player count The double routes are only used with 4 or 5 players. This means that the board is "tighter" at 3 or 5 players, "looser" at 2 or 4 players. So, completing more (or longer) Destination Tickets is much more difficult in 3- or 5-player. With a little experience, it helps to plan the long-view of your initial Destination cities to see how many of the 45 trains you'll likely need to complete the Destinations you currently have (and thus whether you'll want to draw more Destination Tickets). In 2- or 4-player, you can typically use about 40 of your trains in a productive network, in 3- or 5-er, only about 35. 2) "Shortest path" has to be defined by number of connections in addition to number of trains In the Seattle-Toronto-New Orleans example, drawing a Y-shaped network through Kansas City or St Louis may use fewer trains, but it requires more routes, which means more turns taken up claiming routes. A better way to define "short" in Ticket to Ride is "turns needed" (to both get the Train Cards and to claim the routes) divided into the points earned for those claimed routes (which it turn intersects with the "big routes" concept). So, that Y-shaped network through KC will earn 43 VP in 20.5 turns (12.5 to draw, 8 to claim), whereas a direct path from Seattle to Toronto and then a straight shot down from Toronto to New Orleans will earn 58 VP in 21 turns (14 to draw and 7 to claim). [Phoenix can be incorporated into this network relatively directly via Denver.] 3) Prioritize building on "easy" and "desirable" routes first. "Easy" connections are ones that are shorter and colorless. "Desirable" connections are ones that will be popular with more players based on the distribution of the cities in the Destination deck and/or on the locations where players have already built and are likely to use to expand their network. In the Seattle-Toronto-New Orleans example, if building directly across the top from Seattle to Toronto and then straight down to New Orleans via (Pittsburgh-Raleigh-Atlanta), the set of gray 2-routes are far more important to claim early than the northern 6-routes. This is because they are each extremely easy to block, even if your opponent doesn't particularly need the route. The best way to "claim" a long route early to simply horde the cards of that color. If you spend all your draws on yellow-orange-purple and top deck, it'll be extremely difficult for anyone else to take those three Northern routes from you. And if anyone else IS going after them, you can see them coming a mile away and determine whether it is worth spending wild cards to beat them out.
This is actually something where I don't analyzing and using too much math. Then it comes to gaming especially competitive gaming everyone is trying to optimize how they play. When a game is new, or it is the first time you play the game this can actually be very fun. As long as you play against other people that also are new to the game. But when all the theory crafting is done and a good meta has been found, I find that it makes that game boring. It reduces the game to follow a list of instructions again and again and again and make only small adjustments. And I just do not find that fun. Some games try to change the game every x month (TFT) witch I just find confusing. Others try to add so many game mechanics that it is impossible to get an overview making the game hard to play as a beginner or making the game incredibly easy when the meta is developed (Path of Exile). Some people love this, but I just find it uninteresting, I like games that encourage me to be creative and experiment with different strategies, not games where I should look up the meta/builds before playing. I have lost interest in many games over the years, because I try to "solve" the games instead of just playing them for fun. I know you can try so solve any game, but some games rewords you more from solving them than others. I try my best not to solve the games I play, and just be creative and experiment. But not trying to reverse engineer the game mechanics. Here are two games that I am currently playing that you could try to solve, but I choose not to, to keep them fun to play. Timberborn (slow city builder, where you can change the landskabe), Against the Storm (fast city builder, what forces you to make many and quick decisions). You can adjust the difficulty in both game from you cannot loss to you probably cannot win. Adjust to you liking. 🙂
I mostly play europe, and its a bit more lenient with stations. One thing your analysis does not reflect is that depending on opponents builds, you might need to severely rush to take some routes or you are mega screwed if say your 'H' center line is blocked. How I play is actually kinda counter to what is mentioned, in that near the end I often gamble, provided your connected network is decent, often times you need just one or potentially none new builds. (again europes stations help there, and sometimes you screw yourself, but imo generally it is quite good, provided you have "wide network" and not just limited to one side). But IMO one of the most important things is - try to get additional routes quite soon to the start of the game, so that you can optimize your connections in this or some other way. Since often people do not take routes until they have some completed, and by that time your optimization options are way limited.
Thank you for your comments. Yes, it is hard to take into account the opponent builds in such an analysis. That is still a big part of the game. I have done what you suggest (pulling destination cards near the end) for the same reasoning you have listed. I thought this was pretty standard. The suggestion about building a long train instead is one I have used when I don't feel my web is very extensive, or if I feel like I a safe move gives me a better chance for the win. Thanks again for commenting!
I really appreciate your efforts! Could you help me with something unrelated: My OKX wallet holds some USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). Could you explain how to move them to Binance?
I love when I can work in Seattle to Helena to Duluth to Toronto on the US map. These paths aren't used as much as many other paths on the board, and it really racks up the points!
Other important concepts:
1) Player count
The double routes are only used with 4 or 5 players. This means that the board is "tighter" at 3 or 5 players, "looser" at 2 or 4 players. So, completing more (or longer) Destination Tickets is much more difficult in 3- or 5-player. With a little experience, it helps to plan the long-view of your initial Destination cities to see how many of the 45 trains you'll likely need to complete the Destinations you currently have (and thus whether you'll want to draw more Destination Tickets). In 2- or 4-player, you can typically use about 40 of your trains in a productive network, in 3- or 5-er, only about 35.
2) "Shortest path" has to be defined by number of connections in addition to number of trains
In the Seattle-Toronto-New Orleans example, drawing a Y-shaped network through Kansas City or St Louis may use fewer trains, but it requires more routes, which means more turns taken up claiming routes. A better way to define "short" in Ticket to Ride is "turns needed" (to both get the Train Cards and to claim the routes) divided into the points earned for those claimed routes (which it turn intersects with the "big routes" concept). So, that Y-shaped network through KC will earn 43 VP in 20.5 turns (12.5 to draw, 8 to claim), whereas a direct path from Seattle to Toronto and then a straight shot down from Toronto to New Orleans will earn 58 VP in 21 turns (14 to draw and 7 to claim).
[Phoenix can be incorporated into this network relatively directly via Denver.]
3) Prioritize building on "easy" and "desirable" routes first.
"Easy" connections are ones that are shorter and colorless.
"Desirable" connections are ones that will be popular with more players based on the distribution of the cities in the Destination deck and/or on the locations where players have already built and are likely to use to expand their network.
In the Seattle-Toronto-New Orleans example, if building directly across the top from Seattle to Toronto and then straight down to New Orleans via (Pittsburgh-Raleigh-Atlanta), the set of gray 2-routes are far more important to claim early than the northern 6-routes. This is because they are each extremely easy to block, even if your opponent doesn't particularly need the route. The best way to "claim" a long route early to simply horde the cards of that color. If you spend all your draws on yellow-orange-purple and top deck, it'll be extremely difficult for anyone else to take those three Northern routes from you. And if anyone else IS going after them, you can see them coming a mile away and determine whether it is worth spending wild cards to beat them out.
This is actually something where I don't analyzing and using too much math.
Then it comes to gaming especially competitive gaming everyone is trying to optimize how they play. When a game is new, or it is the first time you play the game this can actually be very fun. As long as you play against other people that also are new to the game.
But when all the theory crafting is done and a good meta has been found, I find that it makes that game boring. It reduces the game to follow a list of instructions again and again and again and make only small adjustments. And I just do not find that fun.
Some games try to change the game every x month (TFT) witch I just find confusing. Others try to add so many game mechanics that it is impossible to get an overview making the game hard to play as a beginner or making the game incredibly easy when the meta is developed (Path of Exile).
Some people love this, but I just find it uninteresting, I like games that encourage me to be creative and experiment with different strategies, not games where I should look up the meta/builds before playing.
I have lost interest in many games over the years, because I try to "solve" the games instead of just playing them for fun.
I know you can try so solve any game, but some games rewords you more from solving them than others.
I try my best not to solve the games I play, and just be creative and experiment. But not trying to reverse engineer the game mechanics.
Here are two games that I am currently playing that you could try to solve, but I choose not to, to keep them fun to play. Timberborn (slow city builder, where you can change the landskabe), Against the Storm (fast city builder, what forces you to make many and quick decisions). You can adjust the difficulty in both game from you cannot loss to you probably cannot win. Adjust to you liking. 🙂
I mostly play europe, and its a bit more lenient with stations. One thing your analysis does not reflect is that depending on opponents builds, you might need to severely rush to take some routes or you are mega screwed if say your 'H' center line is blocked.
How I play is actually kinda counter to what is mentioned, in that near the end I often gamble, provided your connected network is decent, often times you need just one or potentially none new builds. (again europes stations help there, and sometimes you screw yourself, but imo generally it is quite good, provided you have "wide network" and not just limited to one side). But IMO one of the most important things is - try to get additional routes quite soon to the start of the game, so that you can optimize your connections in this or some other way. Since often people do not take routes until they have some completed, and by that time your optimization options are way limited.
Thank you for your comments. Yes, it is hard to take into account the opponent builds in such an analysis. That is still a big part of the game.
I have done what you suggest (pulling destination cards near the end) for the same reasoning you have listed. I thought this was pretty standard. The suggestion about building a long train instead is one I have used when I don't feel my web is very extensive, or if I feel like I a safe move gives me a better chance for the win. Thanks again for commenting!
3:39, *120° angles. Hope it helps. Good video. Happy Santa Season!
I am just about to play ticket to ride, thanks!
Interesting 🤔
Thank you for ruining the game.
Haha, I played this with my husband and he won by using longer roads even though I completed more destinations
I really appreciate your efforts! Could you help me with something unrelated: My OKX wallet holds some USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). Could you explain how to move them to Binance?
Sorry, I don't know much about that.