As part of the competitive analysis for our game design process, I played Ticket to Ride: North America, the route-building board game designed by Alan R. Moon and published in 2004 by Days of Wonder. I played this game live with the physical pieces. The target audience is families and casual strategy players who want a simple game with enough strategic decisions. Our game, Hexster, is also a route-building game suitable for ages 8+. However, in our game, players play as hamsters digging tunnels to connect their area of the board with the one belonging to their teammate.
Playing Ticket to Ride made me understand that route-building games are not just about finding the shortest route. They also depend on how much uncertainty, blocking, and rebuilding the designer allows. Hence, my main point is that Ticket to Ride turns a simple route-building system into a tense strategy game by combining clear routes, hidden goals, and the possibility of blocking. This is useful for Hexster because our game also depends on route-building and competition, but it also shows that we need to balance blocking with enough flexibility and recovery so players do not feel trapped after one bad moment.
Figure 1: Our Ticket to Ride board during play. The southeastern area shows how short connections like Nashville-Atlanta can become important bottlenecks.
From the mechanics point of view, Ticket to Ride has a number of formal elements, such as train cards, destination tickets, colored routes, trains, and scores. Each turn, players usually do one of three things: draw train cards, claim a route, or draw more destination tickets. This simple system works remarkably well. In terms of MDA, the mechanics are simple: players collect cards, spend them to claim routes, and try to finish hidden destination tickets. These mechanics create dynamics such as guessing other players’ goals, blocking important routes, planning detours, and experiencing sudden score changes near the end. The aesthetic is mostly Challenge, because players have to plan carefully under uncertainty, but there is also some Fellowship because everyone is watching and reacting to each other’s routes.
What makes Ticket to Ride different from other route-building games is that, compared to Carcassonne, where players create the map themselves, Ticket to Ride has a fixed geography. Also, compared to heavier train games, Ticket to Ridedoes not involve economics, auctions, or stock systems. The map is visible, but players’ goals are hidden from others. I can see someone building to Atlanta, but I do not know if Atlanta is actually important for them. Even a simple board can become uncertain when the goals are hidden.
The most exciting moment from my session was when I needed to connect Nashville with Atlanta in order to finish my construction. Another player claimed this connection before me, so I had to build a detour. At first I thought blocking was simply unfair. After replaying the situation in my head, I realized that the frustration was actually what made the decision memorable. It was frustrating because I had to spend many more turns fixing what happened instead of making new strategic choices. From the designer’s perspective, though, this event was very enlightening. It showed that one small route can change the whole emotional experience of the game.
Blocking in Ticket to Ride is justified and happens according to the rules. It still changes the whole interaction between players. This matters for Hexster, where players build tunnels underground while trying to coordinate with a teammate silently. In Ticket to Ride, the game is mainly individual competition, so direct blocking feels more acceptable. In Hexster, we want players to feel Fellowship first, and Challenge second. The mechanics that create this are silent coordination, tile placement, movement, and limited board space. These mechanics create the dynamic of trying to predict your teammate while also reacting to other teams. If blocking is too harsh, it may damage the feeling of connection between teammates.
I’m still not sure whether Hexster should allow this much blocking. I suspect the balance depends more on board size and tile distribution than on the blocking mechanic itself. Ticket to Ride taught me that the most important areas of the game should not depend on only one unavoidable path. Some important routes in Ticket to Ride have double tracks or nearby detours, which gives players more than one chance. For Hexster, Food Tiles and Bomb Tiles should help players recover, not just create more chaos.
The ethical question of the game is connected to the magic circle. Inside the magic circle, the block made by another player is allowed. The other player did not do anything wrong by taking the Nashville-Atlanta route. Still, as designers, we should think about what kind of experience is created for the player who gets blocked. A move can be legal, but still make another player feel like they lost too much agency for the rest of the game.
To summarise, Ticket to Ride convinces me that route-building games are successful when players know exactly what they are building but do not know what the connection is between the goals and routes. For Hexster, some blocking is important because it creates tension and excitement. The challenge is whether there will be something interesting to do after being blocked.
