Great Western Trail Review - JonGetsGames

Welcome to JonGetsGames! Here is my Great Western Trail board game review.
Look below to skip to each section of the video:

Positive Review Points - 16:12
Neutral Review Points - 24:15
Negative Review Points - 29:51
Variability - 37:06
Player Count - 37:46
Conclusion - 38:55

[GOD]

Good articulation of your disappointment in the game! My experience has not been similar at all regarding the stagnant board state, especially in the 4 player game. This is probably my favorite game of the year, but I respect your willingness to express honest criticism of what is being widely praised. Keep up the great reviews!

[AgentKuo]

I haven't played it yet, but it looks so good already! Reminds me of Carson City and Russian Railroads, looks awesome!

[shatnershairpiece]

Really glad to see you not afraid to neg a game. This is, sadly, very rare among reviewer's, who like to call everything 'phenomenal'. We liked the game, but also think the craftsmen are weak. Three two player games so far. No one went over two craftsmen, 3 buildings max. This could be the 'book track' of this Pfister game, which was an overly thinky aspect of Mombasa I didn't like, meaning there is a hidden strategy there that we haven't discovered yet, or it is simply weak compared to buying cowboys and engineers. The run time is also too long, starting at 4 hrs, going down to, at best, 2.5 for a two player game. The point of the 4 hazard trails eludes us. We still don't know why they are there. No one has used them. If the trail stayed empty, I could see the benefits of building a house there, but the hazards are coming out fast and they are very expensive to remove. Very odd, but I have yet to see anyone complaining about this aspect of the game, or explain how building on a busy hazard trail is a good strategy. In my third game I built a building on an empty trail just to try it out and within five minutes the trail was full of hazard tiles again, and I never used that building for the rest of the game.

[StoutPots]

I didn't find the cost of building that high. We built many, including some that needed to be built upon other existing buildings. And we had cash left over to count at the end. You have to go to the discarding spaces to get cash, which makes the hand management even more challenging. It's a balance of holding unique cards and getting cash that makes this work so well. And the length seemed just about perfect. My two cents. #goty

[Avataarkaap]

Thanks for a well thought through and brave review Jon. I firmly believe that it's the negative reviews that are more helpful, and also give us more insight into the reviewer and whether or not their tastes are similar to ours. Expecting reviewers to be emotionless robots is unrealistic so knowing their tastes are close to yours can be an important filter.

It seems a little odd to me that there are so many people trying to convince you a) that you're 'wrong' and b) that you just need a different play group or more plays before you like the game.

You're entitled to not like a game. It doesn't mean that the game is not good. It just means it is not for you.

Out of interest, what are your three favourite games right now?

[lukaspfffr]

you know what helps against hazards? .. not having any money! in that case you pass them for free. and the bonus on those "risky" spots can be great.

i found that you can sometimes cheat your way up the train track, but jumping opponents trains a lot.

As for the buildings, have you really tried to go for those big buildings? against your "better" jugdement that you need cowboys and train guys more?

[undersci]

I agree with many of your points, though I don't agree with your ultimate conclusion, which I think might be affected by your particular play group. In our group, a lot of buildings come out and the board changes radically over the course of the game, and the people who have built buildings have done very well, not so much because of the action value of the buildings, but also in the way they slow up other players and force their route to be sub-optimal through having to take minor actions on your buildings or pay tolls. At the same time, I do agree there's a ton of luck in the card draw, and if you just can't make a good hand after multiple draws you really can get screwed. I also agree that hazard paths and hazard area buildings are underutilized, which is somewhat of a missed opportunity in terms of gameplay space.

[brianrodenbeck]

I do agree with you that the craftsman are undervalued which does lead to less buildings coming out. However, I still find the board state to be volatile enough to keep the game interesting the whole way through. The randomization of the starting neutral buildings can really make for tougher trips to Kansas City. I would also like to note that, although seemingly undervalued, I don't think anyone could ever do well and completely ignore buildings (especially in the 3-4 player counts).

I think the problem with the tough decision making isn't in which buildings to use or what to do when you land there (which can be pretty straight forward based on the cards in your hand). It's in thinking about passing up those buildings with possible good options for you in order to deliver faster to KC.

The 1.5-2 hrs this game normally takes seems to go by pretty quickly. The fact that you get to delivery to KC so often really gives the players a frequent sense of accomplishment instead of a long drawn out grind for 1 VP that some other euro games can feel like.

I appreciate the review and respect your opinions. Actually, it was your playthrough that convinced me to get this game... and I LOVE it... a lot! My best of the year by a long haul. Thank you so much and keep up the good work.

[Heelms]

Interessant points. I can definitely understand your criticism, although I disagree with much of it.
I love everything about GWT and find that it has plenty of interesting decisions. Without a doubt the game of the year for me. Different strokes for different folks, I suppose :-)

[benmandelker]

I think this game is easily the best of the year. I've never had trouble getting buildings onto the board when I've dedicated resources to them, but that being said, I will concede that it's easier to grab a Texas Longhorn than it is to build a high value building. Still, it's not impossible, and should they specialize in craftsmen hires, players can get some bonus cheap building actions which are invaluable. Additionally, the mid-range buildings have proven to be game changers with my group. Their actions -- the chance to hire at a discount; the opportunity to draw cards per cowboy; the ability to earn certificates for teepee pairs -- are super strong. Even more importantly, buildings allow for engine building (especially if you can chain buildings next to each other). My friend recently used his buildings to power a hazard-clearing machine, which afforded him a huge amount of points -- both from the hazards and the objective cards. It wouldn't have worked for the rest of us, but he tailored his actions and resources to make it work. And that's the beauty of the game for me. It may be a deckbuilder, but it's not a card game. The difficult choices come from using resources -- whether they be cows, money, or movement. It's not so much a question of what to do but rather when to do it.

I also think there's a sly amount of user interaction. It wouldn't seem to be a very interactive game, but the tolls on the board, the race for cheap workers, the posturing on the train track, the escalating Native American market, the dwindling cows -- these things force players to be aware of their competition. Plus, there's strong interaction when it comes to claiming empty spots for buildings (after all, placing your building in the proper spot in the rondel could be what makes or breaks your engine). I've often encountered pretty stiff competition for coveted land spaces.

Nevertheless, thanks for the articulate and thoughtful review. Maybe play one more time and mess around with the buildings?

[DrMcFly]

Good review, but the negative points in particular seem to be a result of a bad groupthink. As someone below already said, putting a building which forwards you further is huge, since it essentially provides you with a freebie action. However, this is something which is not obvious but rather needs to be discovered, similar to a huge number of other tiny yet surprisingly impactful tricks. This game has lots of depth, but it requires time and patience to even figure out it's there.

[ChrisMNetrunner]

Thanks for this review. The game was a big disappointment for me and you hit upon my major issues well - luck of the card draw, repetitive/stagnant gameplay, and buildings being difficult to execute on. Just wanted to say keep up the good work and I love that you're able to say both the positives and negatives for a game.

[boardgamebaaz]

the yellow player built all of his buildings!
blue player bought many cows and scored 53 points only for cows!
and green player played engineer strategy and see his train!
this game has very depth and is very hard to master. i love it!

[arjanang]

I was late to the party and have played this game for the first time this year. I loved it!! :) I respect Jon's opinion but I don't agree with the negatives. I immediately ordered my own copy after playing it. It has been a while since I liked a game so much.

[arw]

I think this is the first time I've disagreed with you. The reason why people suffer in this game is because they visit Kansas City too often. You should be buying buildings with the extra step to give you multiple actions on your turn.

I understand that there's a limit on how much you can play a game, but there's so much more depth than what you seem to have experienced. You should be aiming to have at least 80 points per game.

PS. love the new podcast. keep up the good work.

[petec]

I think you were overwhelmed by the tension which comes from min/maxing and sacrificing. This game looks like a point salad at first glance (get points for everything; choosing the best of two or more good things), and the artwork and theme can deceive you too.

I know that you don't mind that kind of tension at times, since your favorite game is Through the Ages. But maybe Great Western Trail teases at being a point salad when the tension of this game is closer to Ora et Labora, or Le Havre. You feel like you are just a few steps from pulling off something big. You are soooo close to having the perfect action that will bring you tons of points. But you just have to do one more thing. Then you have to sacrifice something. And another thing. Is it worth it? Uh oh. Look at the game clock! You thought you were going to have enough time to pull off your awesome action at least three times. But you still don't have your stuff in order. Are you going to have enough time to pull it off at least once?!?! I love that feeling. But it's not for everyone. And I can see why someone would be disappointed if they were expecting something different.

When people hear deck-building, perhaps they get excited because they expect the Dominion feel in a heavy eurogame. But that's not the experience that GWT delivers.

-I feel it s an oversimplification to say that your hand base based on luck. That "luck" is highly manageable with good planning and using auxiliary actions well. GWT rewards good deck management. But people may be surprised at how difficult that planning may be.

-Buildings? Maybe your problems are from group think? Most of my games see us scoring at least in the mid teens (but often over 20) for building points. You might think we are sacrificing points with cattle then, right? Nope. 20-30 points for cattle is average for us. My wife and I played last night, and I delivered to San Francisco 3 times.

After our first game, I wondered it were even possible to do well with cattle, deliveries, train stations and buildings - or if doing well in one category made you severely and frustratingly deficient in other areas. I think that is where you were with this game when you reviewed it.. However, I really appreciate how GWT is deceptively deep. It is possible to do well in most areas of the game, but that really involves a 'mixed' strategy that is flexible. Bonuses you get in one area of the game can help you advance in other areas. And yes, it does involve sacrificing workers you just paid money for. Is the sacrifice worth it right now, or will it hurt me? Should I wait until next time around? I only have about 6 times around, so I can't wait forever to decide.


Anyway, those are my two cents. I always enjoy your reviews.

[jtfike]

This was my favorite game last year.  In your review of Railroad Revolution, you talk about how the Western Union strategy dominates.  In this game, cow diversity dominates  (The cowboy route).  In fact, one person I know never moves their train at all.  They sit it in Kansas City the ENTIRE game and they do nothing but buy cowboys and cows and this person wins a large number of games.  Another element to his strategy is rushing to KC as fast as he can.  He just rushes and buys cows as much as possible  and wants the game to end fast.Interestingly enough the strategy that "counters" him and beats him is to go the craftsman route and to put as many buildings as you can onto the board.  It also helps to put a building with both sets of hands to force that player to pay as he passes over your building to get to the cow purchase building.It is for that reason...the craftsman route being crucial for game balance...that I ultimately love this game.  I did, however, like your idea of making it so you can just put a building out as part of your KC set of actions.  I feel it would work quite well.   I find buying nothing but cows and rushing to KC to be a boring strategy and it is similar to the Western Union problem...but, thankfully, it can be countered.   And a four player game is BETTER simply for that reason...more buildings on the board slow that boring strategy down.

[chrisbock]

I commend you for putting forth a well argued negative review.

I agree that very occasionally luck of the draw can wreak havoc to well-laid plans.

However, I disagree with some of your criticisms. In my experience the board is very rarely stagnant and building at least 2-3 buildings has been crucial to carrying out any successful strategy. Climbing to the really high level buildings is difficult and requires commitment to that particular strategy but it is a viable winning strategy. I have also had success building beyond hazards and utilizing those buildings.

There is no way to explore all the game has to offer on each play. But, it does present interesting challenges every game. There are also some implicit goals that seem impossible but because of their perceived difficulty spur me to meet the challenge. I'm referring to challenges such as can the end of the railroad be reached, can all tokens be places, can the biggest building be built, and others. Makes me play repeatedly.

[glenjust]

Jon, I've always appreciated how you've done your best to respond to people's comments that are asking for a response. You may not always be able to do this as your subscribers continue to grow (here's to getting to 10k+ in 2017!), but it's one of the many reasons that your channel is one of the best for board gamers. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

[DanielDCotta]

I really disagree with your review, as I was able to build up to some high-level buildings and I found it a nice decision of choosing between replacing a building to get a high level building, or just building more buildings.