Ticket to Ride Europe

Superior to the original in almost every way.

Last April, I reviewed Ticket to Ride and, like many people, predicted that it would win the Spiel des Jahres (which it did). If you haven't played the game, I'd encourage you to read that review as I'll mostly be concentrating on the changes in Ticket to Ride Europe.

I stand by that review but further playings have downgraded my opinion somewhat. The problem is that the layout of the board has a noticeable east-west "grain" to it —the 6-train links are mostly aligned this way as are the high-value tickets. Why is this a problem? Well, you gain points in three ways: claiming links, completing tickets, and having the longest chain. Most of the time these methods are somewhat at odds with each other—is it better to concentrate on completing your tickets or claiming long links? Such decisions are the hallmark of a good game. The problem that arises is that for some tickets, this was not a decision at all; you could complete your tickets and claim long links at the same time. In the majority of the games we played, the winner had at least one west coast-east coast ticket. Drawing such a long ticket did not guarantee that you would win, but it was nearly impossible if you didn't. I still enjoyed the game, but I was less concerned about winning. Since I didn't feel the need to invest in heavy thought, I didn't feel cheated if another player won through luck of the draw.

Even so, it seemed that the game was only in need of a few tweaks to alleviate this problem and fortunately Alan Moon has done just that with Ticket to Ride Europe. The result is a game far less dependent on luck and much better suited for gamers.

I'm philosophically opposed to reviews that list every detail of a game's rules but in this case, it's the changes that are important, particularly for those who already own the original Ticket to Ride. With this in mind:

• The tickets are now subdivided into two classes: long and short. Each player will receive one long ticket as part of their starting hand and the rest are removed from the game.
• Each player has three stations and these may be placed on a city during the game. Doing so allows that player to use one of the links from that city to satisfy a ticket. Since unused stations are worth 4 points, it's not an option that you'd want to employ too often but it can be a lifesaver.
• Claiming certain links require that you play one or more locomotives (the wild cards). We found that people were reluctant to draw locomotives in the original but that's no longer the case in Europe.
• Several links are designated as tunnels. When a person attempts to claim such a link, three cards from the draw deck are revealed. For each card matching the colour of the link (including locomotives) the active player must play an additional card. Failure to do so means that the link is not built and the player takes her cards back into hand.
• The cards are now full-sized with a white border. They're much easier to handle and more resistant to wear.
• The map is different (obviously).

That last point might seem relatively minor but I think that it's the most significant improvement of all. First off, there are only three 6-link routes and all are placed, more or less, on the periphery of the board. (That is, they're much less useful as the backbone of your entire network, something that I thought was a major problem in the original.) There are no 5-link routes at all but a single 8-link route exists between Stockholm and Petrograd. (It's worth 21 points and is also a tunnel!) All this, and the actual layout of the links themselves, lead to a game that is much more focussed on satisfying tickets and this feels like an improvement to me. I played many games of the original in which no one drew extra tickets—they represented such a wild swing of fortune that often only a desperate player would attempt it. In Europe, drawing tickets seems a far more sensible thing to do. There's greater leeway in how you can connect cities and this means that you have more options given a particular group of tickets. It's a tricky exercise but one that I find enjoyable. Certainly it's more fun than looking at your hand and realizing that none of them work together at all (a not uncommon experience in the original).

Note the tunnel from Paris to Zurich and the link requiring locomotives from London to Amsterdam.

So does this version render the original obsolete? No. As I mentioned earlier, it's superior in almost every way. It is a little more complicated than the original and the improvements all have a slightly fiddly aspect to them—even though the games are largely the same, there are about twice as many rules in Ticket to Ride Europe. This isn't to say that Europe is complicated and I think that non-gamers would be able to handle it without problem. The big difference though is the feel of the two games. The original was laid-back and relaxed whereas Europe feels much more tense. You would think that the stations would result in less blocking (the prime cause of tension) but this does not seem to be the case. Ticket to Ride Europe feels considerably more competitive to me. For many people this will be a positive thing but there are those who will prefer a more relaxed game. This, combined with the simpler rules, means that I'm much more likely to bring out the original when playing with casual players. When I'm playing with my regular group though, Ticket to Ride Europe will be the one that hits the table.

- Greg Aleknevicus