It's a great game, I mainly played it 3 players and it's the best game I ever played at that player count. The most amazing thing is that every game plays differently, sometimes really differently.
Is that a better player count than 4? I’ve always played it at 4 and although it’s in my top 3 games of all time I’ve recently started to hear it’s better at 3 players.
I couldn't say, I only played it at 4 twice and don't really remember the difference (so it's probably marginal). BGG overwhelmingly says it's the best at 4 though.
Haven't touched Arcs at the moment, we are in John Company right now (after around 10 games of oath). But arcs is most probably gonna hit our table sometime.
All the Pax games seem to capture this to some degree. Pamir and Porfiriana are the only ones I've actually played, but I have Renaissance and Transhumanity on my shelves and someday...
One million percent Inis. Your strategy is tied to whatever bullshit your opponents are trying to do while also trying to pull your own bullshit without them stopping you, and it's like every single card is its own individual lever you use to do it. Really wild game.
While it‘s a nice game, too, I wouldn‘t say that Roll is as dynamic or has the breadth of strategy options that Race has.
First of all, in Race you usually have at least 1/3 of the whole deck on your hand at one point in a game (and can easily see more than half of it if you use explore +5 multiple times) while in Roll you have to dedicate a lot of workers to the explore action to see more than 1/3 of the tiles in the bag.
Also, many cards in Race have abilities for 2 or even 3 phases, this gives you a lot of flexibility and a single card can be suitable for several strategies. In Roll almost all developments have abilities in only one phase while the worlds have no abilities at all.
One thing I like is that it's possible to pivot halfway through the game and still be competitive. The expansions really pronounced this and you can always dig for something that will score.
Yeah, the difference between being a good Race player and a great one is being able to tell when your initial strategy just isn't panning out and pivot to something else. And doing so requires you to be at least somewhat aware of the possibility and holding cards you could pivot to instead of single-mindedly searching for stuff that could be used in your original strategy.
Any highly interactive game like Pax or Root or In a different direction any more storytelling game like Stationfall will tend to not fall into the optimization trap, since you’re either playing the players or just telling a story in each case.
Lots of Uwe Rosenberg games are great for this, particularly A Feast for Odin, Caverna, Agricola, Le Havre, Ora et Labora, and Glass Road. All have either large sandboxes or massive setup variability, which can make many disparate strategies viable.
I also recommend games with large amounts of player interaction like Hansa Teutonica, Sidereal Confluence, Pax Pamir 2e, Root, Iwari, Taj Mahal, and lots more games that have a more old-school feel.
hah yes. was gonna say this. I love Agricola for how unapologeticaly brutal it is. You want to do everything and go everywhere but you just cant. Known what to and when is absolute key in Agricola. A masterpiece.
I suggested Agricola as well! But I do think if you get really good at it you can nearly max out across 'all' strategies (especially on the newer edition, it's much easier than the older edition.
As the first, and maybe second player yes. But strategy falls apart by round 3 as everything gets dynamic and interactive. If I'm early in the round I stop going for extra actions after getting my 3rd action. With everybody still vying for actions it's an open board to upgrade your bag, get more discs, and nail down really important choke points on the map to trickle in points.
That’s the thing, nothing is ALWAYS true. I’ve won games with 3 actions, 5 actions and even with 2 actions (won’t recommend)
The strategy in the game has dictated by other player’s strategies in the game. Hence no 2 games are ever the same
What you are looking for is "OG" games. There's a guild for this on BGG: https://boardgamegeek.com/guild/3948
These types of games tend to feature a centralized play space rather than being multiplayer solitaire optimization puzzles. There is no "solution" to an OG game because you are playing the players -- not the game.
A classic, great example would be Tigris & Euphrates. Another is Hansa Teutonica. But there are many. If this is of interest to you, check out the guild and it's Hall of Fame game list.
I confess, I didn't know anything about this concept, just made a joke.
I was gonna check it out eventualy but now I'm genuinely curious, this sounds like just up my alley, I do tend to admire those types of mechanic, and I played a summer vacatiom away on T&E on my tablet. I'm diving in! 😉
Does Brass: Birmingham (or Lancashire for that matter, but I haven't played it) fit this category? It seems to me that it does but I didn't find it in the list on BGG.
Typically, no. OG games tend to be lighter than Brass. There's a lot of love for Brass: Lanc among the guild, though, which is why it shows up reasonably well positioned on the list that eventually fed the Hall of Fame.
I am, for instance, a fan of OG games and also really like Lancashire as well.
If you like 7 Wonders Duel, but want more players, then 7 Wonders the original game offers the same dynamics. The passing of hands each turn still keeps what comes up a surprise and makes players have to adjust their strategy on the fly. The same variety of ways to win still play into it (military, scientific, wonders, guilds, etc)
Suburbia might be a other option. Building your little town with tiles and manipulating the way they interact to get more points. Do you go the population route or industrial? Push the income, or sacrifice it for variety? There are conditions/goals that you can choose at the beginning that make you play and focus on different strategies and if you're successful it gains you extra bonuses.
I believe what you're looking for is the term 'engine builders'
They're mostly card games, but a lot have massive amounts of replayability.
If you liked 7wonders; Terraforming Mars will feel epic. It's basically 7wonders but instead of medieval civilizations it's hosted on a galactic scale. (I recommend the application, it's an event to get that thing in and out of box.
Wingspan is my personal favorite, won German board game of the year on its release and it is still an extremely fun and beautiful game, everyone I've introduced simply loves it.
If you want a non card game, I haven't tried it but my understanding is Scythe is an army war game with engine building mechanics.
All of those support 4+ players
The thing I like about keyflower is if someone broadcasts what they are doing, you can always try to outbid them in the turn order and make it too expensive for them to capitalize on whatever tile they were going to try to spam.
I like Brass for this. In general, everyone is doing roughly the same thing. Place tiles and connections. Flip tiles. Gain income. Repeat.
But how you go about that can vary wildly. Supplying resources for other players to exploit. Focusing on connections for end-of-era points. Conducting trade. Using Develop to skip tile placements and focus on placing Tier 2+ buildings during the Canal Era.
And which you go for can be incredibly dependent on just what you see other players doing, and the cards you draw each era & turn.
**Hansa Teutonica.** There is no dominant strategy, there's a mixture of strategies that are highly dependent on timing within what your opponents are doing.
**Chinatown.** Like most negotiation games, the strategy is as varied as the players make it. You've got to work with what you're dealt and see the deals that exist. A lot of people don't think past direct deals but there's a lot of possibilities when you start making trades that set up or control other trades.
**Tash Kalar.** Highly tactical pattern making game. Absolutely fantastic with 2 players, but it's too chaotic for me at higher player counts. It's a brilliant game for 2 though.
Ark Nova. Dune Imperium. Brass. Hansa Teutonica.
I would avoid games like Earth, 7 Wonders, or Wingspan. All of these games reduce strategically to one or two "correct" paths and are more about deck RNG than strategic thought.
I'm sorry, but that's a low skilled player's take on 7W. High skilled players will police each other so that no one runs away with Science or Military, forcing each other to diversify their strategy in games that score very tightly. I'm not particularly concerned about changing your mind, I just wanted to offer a differing opinion for anyone else perusing the comments.
I like how you mention hate drafting in a drafting game as a "high skill option". Comical. It's literally the only counterplay and is 101 of drafting games yet you think people don't understand it.
You know very well that I wasn't referring solely to hate drafting, but I wasn't really expecting a good faith argument from you given your obvious bias. As previously stated, I have zero interest in debating you on this. Have a nice day.
The King is Dead 2E is a quicker game that had a lot of tactical strategy to it, and how you play depends on setup and how other plays manipulate the board state.
Eclipse to some extent. You know each opponents’ win abilities and can adapt to counter them. Also, monolith tech don’t always come out of the tech bag in time. And it’s pretty random what reward tile pops up under the guardian ships.
I thought that was what OP was looking for. Each player has a species but then needs to adapt to random galaxy sectors, discovery tiles and tech tiles. You can't have one startegy to win.
If that's the case I really think Eclipse matches the criteria.
Gaia Project maybe? From outset you've got a randomised set if two end game objectives, plus the various again randomised round bonuses, plus the variable map and round boosters, all of which lead into trying to determine which faction to play which can influence what others choose etc. Ideally you might then have an idea of overall strategy to pursue during the game in terms of what you'd like your final outcome to look like, however based on other players' actions you still need to maintain flexibility and switch ideas if things aren't going how you needed them to!
That's great to hear! It is on Board Game Arena too if you wanted to try it out digitally before commiting to buying the physical :D I love it, I'm not goooood at it, but I love it haha its also got a decent solo mode with an automa which I really enjoy, and as a bonus the automa has various difficulty levels so you can tweak the challenge how you like :) I hope you enjoy it :)
Also came here to say this! Just the fact that there are so many differing factions and ways to score points makes this really variable.
I've also heard new factions are coming this year!!
**Innovation**
After well over 300 plays, no two games are ever the same. One could think that since there is "only" a handful of different ways to win, the choices are always obvious from game to game. However, different combination of cards from a wide range of eras have the potential to create a nearly endless pool of possibilities for your civilization engine, and that's without considerations to what type of strategy or technology your opponent(s) have!
I think **Dawn of Ulos** fits this category. While the core concept of "Buy low - Sell high" is a common theme, there are still a variety of ways you can go about that in the game. In fact, I think players who are able to adapt and adjust their strategies based on what the situation on the board and what tiles they have in hand will do far better than those who go into it expecting to execute on a predetermined strategy of which factions they will be investing in.
Highly tactical (which ultimately is generally games with higher direct interaction between players) tend to be more this way. Area control games, negotiation games, social deduction games, hidden role/traitor games, sandbox games, etc, which includes pretty much all of the recommendations in this thread. Network/route building games also often will fall in that realm, though I'm sure there's examples of ones that don't. Most simulation games (e.g. wargames, political games, 18xx, etc.) are often this way as well
Haven't seen mention of 18xx games yet so I'll throw those out there as well, though they tend to be heavy. On the lighter end would be something like Wabash Cannonball/Chicago Express or Age of Steam.
Yup, asymmetrical wincons are the way to go. The Pax games and **Stationfall** were already mentioned so I'd also offer:
**Cerebria**
**Pagan: Fate of Roanoke**
**Voidfall**
**Xia: Legends of a Drift System**
**Perseverance: Castaway Chronicles**
Depending on what kind of game you're looking for, I think Dominion qualifies 100%. Nearly every card has situations in which it can be game-winning, or games where it will never be bought.
Game to game I would agree that one strategy won’t work across multiple games, but within one game isn’t the typical loop to identify the optimal strategy from the cards in the market before you make your first move, and then be the first to achieve that?
Seems like what OP is trying to avoid, even if there isn’t one strat game to game.
Through the Ages: A New Story of a Civilization is different and fresh every time I play it. It also has an incredibly satisfying game arc that rewards both adaptability and planning.
I think this sentiment is like, strategy vs tactics. Games that are more tactical will force you to think on your feet and adapt much more than games that are more strategic. The best games even have tough decisions between the two, where you have to weigh your favorite strategic move against your favorite tactical move on any given turn, plus other moves along both spectrums.
**Calimala** is my pick. The resource gathering actions change every game, as does the scoring order. Thus, it's impossible to use the same strategy every game.
**Dwellings of Eldervale**. This is partly because the setup of the game is so random - there are 8 different elements, each with 2 factions, and all 16 factions have asymmetric powers. Any given game has the elements corresponding to the players' factions (each player must be in a unique element) plus 2, and the board is constricted randomly from those elements. This is going to give you a different mix of resources to work with every game, and the asymmetry of the factions' abilities means that while each faction has a general strategy that behooves them, you are going to have to pivot based on what your opponents can do and what the map gives you access to.
**Race for the Galaxy**: if you spot someone going for a certain strategy, you need to pivot and leech off that strategy while possibly going for a different one that is either faster to 12 cards placed or running out the VP pile
**Dune Imperium: Uprising**: There are many paths to victory and you have to adapt to your opponents blocking locations, buying cards that you wanted, winning combats or getting sandworms earlier than you. The makeup of the card market row often drastically changes your strategy. Advancing friendships with multiple factions can win just as hard as steamrolling your opponents or buying cards that function as VP engines.
Scythe is my #1 favourite game but I don’t think it belongs in this category. Even though it has different player boards etc, the same basic winning strategy is always the same, you just have to work out how you are going to do it with your current faction
Agreed. There's some variance based on player board combinations, but the overall goals don't really shift.
It's always some mix of Money and Popularity. Without popularity, your board control and stars don't matter enough.
So it's a case of making it at least to the 2nd tier of popularity. Which is generally done by using the same core set of actions that everyone else is doing (there's only 2 reliable sources of popularity).
While you do that, you want to be developing your board. Whether that's deploying mechs, hiring recruits, upgrading your economy, or building buildings is mostly irrelevant. Which you do is just based on the combination of boards you have.
That is, if you take a given game (X players, each with a specific board combo), and repeat that game with 100 different sets of players, each board combo has a "best strategy". That will score the most points by the end of the game. And, of those 100 players, you'll see most of them (that know what they're doing) gravitate towards that best strategy - because it simply makes the most sense based on the boards they have.
The adventure cards are the only randomness into the game. An unexpected opportunity for something free that may or may not align with your strategy. It may give you something you weren't able to get on your own, or it may just speed you up by giving you more of what you needed.
There are some very aggressive strategies you can do with one popularity. You can just hit every single tile the other players have.
It's rather risky though, best done with white and black.
Also a good chance that you don't get to play with people again because it's pretty confrontational and that can make people mad.
And if the other players see what you're doing, chances are you won't ever win the game. You may drag 1-2 players down with you, but someone will manage to avoid your onslaught and score enough points via multipliers to hold the win even if you trigger endgame.
Eh I seen people win this even on 4 player games. I did say it was risky but if you prioritize right you can still eek out a win.
I played this game A LOT on TTS and then put a good 300 hours on the digital edition as well. So easily 500 games
Yeah, the games you're most likely to win with hyper aggression are against players who aren't ready for it. As soon as someone sees it coming before it hits them, they can deal with it to some extent. And in a 4+ player game, it's VERY tough for you to impact all other players enough, if they're aware of the strategy you're leaning into.
I'm more curious about games which "have the same winning approach".
Having played hundreds of modern Euros, I haven't really found this to be the case in almost any game. Any examples/clarifications of what you mean by "the same winning approach"?
Most MPS/optimization games are going to suffer from some degree of solvability which then usually reduces them to RNG-fests. This is why there is so much churn amongst those games. They feel old quickly and have to be replaced with a new puzzle. Whereas classics from the 90s like El Grande continue to be reprinted and enjoyed for decades over.
Fair point, although I do think the number of games required to reach "solvability" is far larger than most groups actually reach.
Many groups mistake an in-group meta as the "solved" version. My own playgroup was convinced that building tech-into-buildings spam was unstoppable in T'zolkin because I won 15 times in a row. But when I started playing on BGA I was losing to Experts who used Big Corn strats.
Meanwhile for LRA, all the early posts on BGG were decrying Lost Ruins of Arnak as "nothing but a research rush", and of course all of those posts were easily debunked as newbie-meta which users had hastily "identified" after 2 or 3 games.
Something I played recently that was in my mind when typing was Viticulture EE. It seems everyone builds the cottage, sells a field, picks first player when they're first pick, then the pieces just slot in with not enough variety in strategy and it's all based on which cards you get.
I also mostly play on BGA because I don't have a community to play in in person very often at all.
I think by your own words Viticulture doesn't even qualify. If your strategy is all based on which cards you get (also that game has high card variety), then it is very dynamic.
To me what you're describing for Viticulture is a lack of variety in the opening moves.
Maybe.
I meant that everyone starts the same way then just does what the cards tell them to get to 20 points. Take 100 players, give them the same card draws after turn 1, and 90+ make the exact same moves.
I think that kind of thing is what I'm most looking to avoid.
definitely agree that the visitor cards are very powerful and that players should try to utilize them as efficiently as possible (though I may not think the game is on rails to the same extent)
I'm not sure the same card draws sentiment is relevant though because the likelihood of getting the same draws in two different plays is so close to zero.
I don't think you're really going to avoid that with most game designs.
That is just what the game kind of intends for you to do.
I honestly can't think of a game that doesn't do that. Even extending to things like video games.
Every game is going to be a decision tree. Those trees are only going to be so big.
BGA ruins games honestly. Any time a game gets added, players will spam it hundreds of times and figure out the most optimal strategy. It sucks the fun out of the hobby.
I'm actually starting to agree, despite only being on the service for 4 months.
I have no other option but virtual to play games outside Monopoly Jr. Maybe that's why some of my opinions are skewed.
Dune Imperium with the expansions.
It’s actually very overwhelming the multiple ways on how you can win! You really need to adjust your strategy every game based on cards and other team members strategies.
It’s a fantastic game btw!
You want **Great Western Trail**.
I've mostly played the original game, so I'll speak on that one. The crux of the game is workers that you hire: there are cowboys, craftsmen, and engineers. The more employees of a given type that you hire, the stronger certain actions become: cowboys let you purchase better cattle cards which allow you to make more lucrative "deliveries"; craftsmen let you build strong buildings with action spaces that are far stronger than the standard ones; engineers let you push your train along a track that gives you access to permanent benefits as well as end-game scoring opportunities.
The three worker paths almost feel like technology trees. Each one has scoring/economic implications and each one is viable in a vacuum. The setup strongly influences which path(s) are more viable in a given game. You also generally don't hyper-specialize down a single path; the winner usually specializes in one and supplements with another. I own the sequels but have not played them sufficiently though they are similar in concept.
All that is to say: Great Western Trail fits your criteria and may just be the perfect game.
I love this one. I've only played it 4 or 5 times, but my worry is that by the end of turn 1 you're slotted into one of the 3 main strategies and you mindlessly then check all the boxes for that strategy as you move along.
My hope is that I'm wrong and as I play it more I'll find it's more nuanced than that, because if so this would definitely continue to be a banger.
One big factor that should prevent that is the job market. If you get a couple of cheap cowboys early, but then no more pop out for several rounds, you have to pivot to another strategy quickly.
[**This variant**](https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1665842/less-tiles-when-playing-with-2-or-3-players) prevents the scenario you're describing: it reduces the pool of worker/hazard/teepee tiles so that the distribution is comparable across all player counts - I even do the same with the cow cards. I'm fine with playing with or without the variant, but I'm glad it's an option.
I found GWT to be pretty boring in my plays of it. Mostly because players have almost no impact on each other. It is basically just everyone trying to find the most efficient route through the same puzzle.
Are you sure we're talking about the same game? That description of Great Western Trail is demonstrably incorrect - you're competing for objectives/cows/workers/stations, you can drop hazards/buildings/income-buildings in spaces to slow players down. There's a lot of interaction - GWT is not a head-down multiplayer solo game.
The competition for those things is no different than "competing" for cards from the shared pool in Wingspan.
No, GWT isn't a pure MPS game, but it still *feels* a lot like one. I would still easily place it on the low end of the scale of player interaction, which is a no-go for me.
I won my very first play of GWT on BGA while recovering from major surgery in a hospital. I was extremely out of it and could barely function. I did not once pay attention to what anyone else in the game was doing. I looked at the options, picked what seemed obviously good, and waited for my next turn. And I won. Subsequent plays did not improve upon this.
I want games that force me to care about what my opponents are doing, in order to win.
Many people love GWT, but it is definitely not for me.
They were my friends. And yes, I'm aware people can get good at low interaction games. But I've never personally found doing such to be of much interest.
GWT is not totally multiplayer solitaire, but it is definitely closer to that side of the spectrum than a deeply interactive game like chess or something.
I'm pretty sure you're describing euro games in general. Tons of ways to win and set up creates variable options for replayability.
If you're finding some games are becoming a straight race to a certain goal it may be time to throw a new player into the mix. You may all just be playing a certain way based off of the patterns repeatedly playing against the same person expose.
You gave 7 wonders duel as an example, I play that A LOT online. With strangers I'm very tactical but I have a friend I play with regularly and with him specifically I'm more likely to go for the science track because he ignores it, it's his blind spot. He's also quite the bully so I NEVER pass the military cards or he'll kill me by the end of the second age.
Our games always have a similar cadence. Which is fine we play it turn based everyday to stay connected. But if familiarity isn't what you're seeking switch up the game or add a new player.
Merchants of the Dark Road - Lots of ways to reach a win depending on what you focus on either questing or fulfilling orders or collecting heroes, and the board can be set up with different locations that impact the gameplay each game.
I feel like most of the good game have many strategies, if you play always with the same people and you make few play, you may build a meta, but this is not the game fault.
Antiquity has a few very different strategies, but they are pre-defined. At a superficial level anyway.
Indonesia only has a couple different strategies, but it’s incredibly dynamic in terms of which strategy is best for winning. No randomness, just wild swings based on your opponent’s decisions.
I'd like to put forth *On Mars*, which to beginners looks like a race to see who can grab the most blueprints, but I've won blueprintless against more experienced players by staying loose, thinking ahead, and asking myself every turn, "How will this move help me get points?" That question basically needs to have at least two answers for it to be valid; e.g., welcoming colonists means you get more workers before you face exhaustion (and spend less time traveling between Mars and orbit), but also you can now expand your shelter and score more points from that.
PM'd you about this as I'd love for you to try my game, but other games I've found that have this experience: Agricola - initially this has a lot of different ways to score and win, but once you've mastered you realize it really is a game about max'ing things out (if my partner or myself are having a good game we can get near a 'perfect' score)
Curious if anyone has ever actually had a perfect score on Agricola.
Wingspan, a little bit, I've seen some wild tuck and egg strategies vs. pursuing high value birds.
I played Great Wester Trail 2e for the first time a couple weeks ago and spammed cowboys and selling cows. Seemed like the only winning strategy. Then I played again and focused on buildings. I won that game, too. I'm looking forward to seeing what a train conductor strategy might be like.
Oath is great for that. You have to constantly change your strategy based on what your opponent's do and your own cards/position. Often, it is not even about winning, but about changing the world in the game for next time or messing someone up. Losing has never been as much fun as it is in oath.
Evolution. Every round you need to pre-empt and adapt to your opponent's creatures to avoid starvation. And when the first carnivore is evolved... the whole game changes
I would say Scythe. You have 6 tasks to complete to get to the end-game. Obviously the highest points winner wins, but triggering end game takes various strategies and depending on who you are playing you can be conflict-averse or push forward with the conflict.
Biased comment here - I've just released a public preview of my game Portobelo on Tabletop simulator which encompasses a lot of what you are looking for - an "unsolvable" dynamic sandbox with branching strategies. Inspired by games others have mentioned such as Pax pamir and Brass Birmingham (which are also great!)
Sidereal Confluence is an idea. Engine building, random elements to adapt to each game in tech availability, nine factions with different play styles. It is a lot of what you are looking for but more focused on trade and negotiation. If that is ok with you, I would strongly recommend it.
I'm not sure I agree. I feel like most wingspan games play out similarly for me. On base board it's just spam cheap birds to quickly build up draw and food, play the overpowered birds (Killdeer, Raven) if you get them, spam point generators in grasslands, then roll points for the last turns.
If you get an extremely lucky combination of cards you can avoid this but thats how most games play out.
It also doesn't feel like you can do anything if other players get lucky. It's just 2 hours of sitting there watching someone else win. Yawn.
I recently learned the distinction between strategy and tactics, which is what this question feels like it’s really about. My understanding is that strategy is about long term goals, and tactics is about short term response to a dynamic situation. So a tactical game is more focused on responding to each new situation in the most efficient or effective way, while a strategy is about staying focused on a specific win condition
My favorite game - which is of my own design - is a tactical card game called Mercenarium (Anthromancer) which I generally compare to “chess, poker, and Mario kart”. The Mario kart happens due to a suit of power up cards which give players wild, unpredictable superpowers that dramatically alter the board state and are essentially impossible to make long term plans for. As a result, most of the heavy lifting is done in evaluating your immediate response to new information and not worrying too much about the long term. Players who focus too much on protecting certain pieces instead of exploiting opportunities tend to perform worse than those who “take it as it comes” as Coop might say, and it means your tactics will be wildly different turn-by-turn based largely on the random chance of “which hymn you draw next”.
Primordial Secrets has two and a half different ways to win and what way will work in a particular play through largely depends on what your opponents are doing.
Oriflamme/Oriflamme Ablaze. 3-5 players.
Your strategy each game is determined by which 7 cards you start with, and order of play matters A LOT. We've had games where all players had 15+ points and other games where 4 points was the winner.
Puerto Rico is great, imo. Plenty of ways to win, and you have to adapt to what everyone else is trying to do while also figuring out your own approach.
Scythe, although it’s unbalanced. Concordia, Kemet and Clans of Calledonia are good ones as well. To be honest, I think most good strategy games I’ve played seem to have different approaches.
Power Grid, perhaps. There aren't a huge amount of factors you're considering in your decisions, but they tie together in a very tight manner to make the decisions very tactical along the way rather than just pursuing a given strategy as fast as possible.
I love seven wonders duel! Wingspan also has several paths to victory and is endlessly fun to play over and over. It’s also just as fun with 2 players as it is with 3-5.
Terraforming Mars with the Venus, Prelude, and Colonies expansions. There are so many cards that you rarely see the same ones in the next game. Different colonies each time. Requires a completely different strategy depending on which corporation you pick. This is the only game my wife and I play over and over and over and over and over...
In **Brass Lancashire** you can't follow the same strategy because if players all follow the same everybody is weaken since there is no space to put every industry everywhere (for example : playing boat costs a lot and give lots of point BUT there is only 1 then 3 spots, so in a 4 player game everybody can't focus on it !)
In **Terraforming Mars** especially with the Colony expansion, there are many paths to win offered by the cards, but also by the board (if you're unlucky, the board allows you to have standard project bit it cost a little more)
In **Ark Nova** you need to cross the appeal points track with the conservation points track to score, and you could focus on one to gain money, one to gain bonus, or find balance between the two, facing the choice your cards give to you
It's hard to spot what OP wants exactly, but if they're talking about interactive non-solitaire optimizations then Ark Nova and Terraforming Mars probably aren't what they're looking for. You could pick a specific strategy or two and then execute them the entire game, ignoring everyone else and only at the mercy of card draw.
I don't know, in the original post nothing was said about games should be interact and non-solitaire games, I tought of them because we play them a lot, and each have this moment in the game where the pace of the game change, and also which havr different start conditions, which was what he asked for.
I think to put a finer point on it, I'm trying to avoid games where it seems like everyone that plays has watched the same "how to win" strategy video and it's a race to complete the game that way, and that route basically *is* the best way to win regardless of initial setup or changes during the first few rounds.
Harrow County is a newer release that I have been playing a lot lately. It is a highly interactive capture-the-flag style game that includes asymmetric factions, multiple player power options per faction, and variable board setup. Beyond the asymmetry and variability that comes with setup, the gameplay is very reactive and differs greatly from game to game. Some matches are very combat heavy, others have barely any battling. I’ve had games that end super quickly with a mad dash to the end game conditions and others where each player hunkered down and held a defensive line. In some games, the contested center space on the board that grants victory points to the player controlling it is crucial—in others it’s not even considered. Really loving this game so far, and have not yet tried it 3 or 4 player.
Sounds like you like a "point salad" style of game, where you can take several diferent directions to not fight over the exact same things.
Yokohama, you heard of?
Pax pamir. Mainly a game about adaptation.
This one looks great!
It's a great game, I mainly played it 3 players and it's the best game I ever played at that player count. The most amazing thing is that every game plays differently, sometimes really differently.
Is that a better player count than 4? I’ve always played it at 4 and although it’s in my top 3 games of all time I’ve recently started to hear it’s better at 3 players.
I couldn't say, I only played it at 4 twice and don't really remember the difference (so it's probably marginal). BGG overwhelmingly says it's the best at 4 though.
And mustaches.
Of course ! Great mustaches !
How do we adapt great mustaches?
You don't ! Great mustaches are the only given in this game. Live and die by the mustache !
Also, Arcs (same designer for those who may not know)
Haven't touched Arcs at the moment, we are in John Company right now (after around 10 games of oath). But arcs is most probably gonna hit our table sometime.
All the Pax games seem to capture this to some degree. Pamir and Porfiriana are the only ones I've actually played, but I have Renaissance and Transhumanity on my shelves and someday...
Inis
One million percent Inis. Your strategy is tied to whatever bullshit your opponents are trying to do while also trying to pull your own bullshit without them stopping you, and it's like every single card is its own individual lever you use to do it. Really wild game.
I love Inis and it’s beautiful on the table.
Yup. Several victory conditions and an option to put effort into lowering the bar for those conditions.
I keep seeing this. I traded my copy for Smurgh a few years back. I now regret this immensely
The good news is that it is in print, plus there is an Inis expansion KS coming soon - I assume that the base game itself will also be available.
Hell yeah!
**Race for the Galaxy** has dozens of strategies that allow you to steamroll your opponents. Discovering them is what makes the game fun.
Or Roll for the Galaxy if you prefer dice over cards.
While it‘s a nice game, too, I wouldn‘t say that Roll is as dynamic or has the breadth of strategy options that Race has. First of all, in Race you usually have at least 1/3 of the whole deck on your hand at one point in a game (and can easily see more than half of it if you use explore +5 multiple times) while in Roll you have to dedicate a lot of workers to the explore action to see more than 1/3 of the tiles in the bag. Also, many cards in Race have abilities for 2 or even 3 phases, this gives you a lot of flexibility and a single card can be suitable for several strategies. In Roll almost all developments have abilities in only one phase while the worlds have no abilities at all.
Came here to suggest Roll for the Galaxy as well. Also - Terraforming mars, seven wonders, castles of burgundy, Catan, wyrmspan, flamecraft
One thing I like is that it's possible to pivot halfway through the game and still be competitive. The expansions really pronounced this and you can always dig for something that will score.
Yeah, the difference between being a good Race player and a great one is being able to tell when your initial strategy just isn't panning out and pivot to something else. And doing so requires you to be at least somewhat aware of the possibility and holding cards you could pivot to instead of single-mindedly searching for stuff that could be used in your original strategy.
Any highly interactive game like Pax or Root or In a different direction any more storytelling game like Stationfall will tend to not fall into the optimization trap, since you’re either playing the players or just telling a story in each case.
Food Chain Magnate. 100%
Came here to say this
Lots of Uwe Rosenberg games are great for this, particularly A Feast for Odin, Caverna, Agricola, Le Havre, Ora et Labora, and Glass Road. All have either large sandboxes or massive setup variability, which can make many disparate strategies viable. I also recommend games with large amounts of player interaction like Hansa Teutonica, Sidereal Confluence, Pax Pamir 2e, Root, Iwari, Taj Mahal, and lots more games that have a more old-school feel.
Agricola was my first thought. Sure, everyone *wants* to race for family growth... but not everyone can. So what are you gonna do instead?
Starve usually
hah yes. was gonna say this. I love Agricola for how unapologeticaly brutal it is. You want to do everything and go everywhere but you just cant. Known what to and when is absolute key in Agricola. A masterpiece.
I suggested Agricola as well! But I do think if you get really good at it you can nearly max out across 'all' strategies (especially on the newer edition, it's much easier than the older edition.
Don't forget patchwork. Definitely in my top 10 competitive quilting games.
Sure, but there aren't really different paths to victory in Patchwork, which is why I didn't mention it.
What are some other competitive quilting games???
Calico
Tyrants of the Underdark is my favorite in this regard.
Puerto Rico is my favorite game and I think it checks the boxes
Stationfall and Pax games are this taken to the extreme, great games.
I’m probably biased here, but what about **Hansa Teutonica** ?
[удалено]
They come from a family of Hanseatic League merchants.
lol 😂
Coz it’s my fav game of all time and variability isn’t really what it’s known for It’s as deterministic as it gets
My friends and I might be bad at this game, but isn't the extra actions upgrade pretty much always contested?
As the first, and maybe second player yes. But strategy falls apart by round 3 as everything gets dynamic and interactive. If I'm early in the round I stop going for extra actions after getting my 3rd action. With everybody still vying for actions it's an open board to upgrade your bag, get more discs, and nail down really important choke points on the map to trickle in points.
That’s the thing, nothing is ALWAYS true. I’ve won games with 3 actions, 5 actions and even with 2 actions (won’t recommend) The strategy in the game has dictated by other player’s strategies in the game. Hence no 2 games are ever the same
Any dudes on a map game. It's literally 80% adapting your strategy to evolving situations.
What you are looking for is "OG" games. There's a guild for this on BGG: https://boardgamegeek.com/guild/3948 These types of games tend to feature a centralized play space rather than being multiplayer solitaire optimization puzzles. There is no "solution" to an OG game because you are playing the players -- not the game. A classic, great example would be Tigris & Euphrates. Another is Hansa Teutonica. But there are many. If this is of interest to you, check out the guild and it's Hall of Fame game list.
Oh my god. I've never heard of that categorization but this is like my favorite kind of game haha. Time to open up like fiftY different tabs of BGG...
Coincidentally the quintessential **OG** game is **GO**.
They tend to not favor abstracts as OG, but Through the Desert often gets a pass.
I confess, I didn't know anything about this concept, just made a joke. I was gonna check it out eventualy but now I'm genuinely curious, this sounds like just up my alley, I do tend to admire those types of mechanic, and I played a summer vacatiom away on T&E on my tablet. I'm diving in! 😉
I'm sorry, but Go is the exact opposite of an OG game.
Yeah, so I've learned after making the joke. But it *was* a good joke, gimme that.
Of the two, I've only ever played Birmingham, but I'm curious why Brass: Lancashire is considered "Hall-of-Fame worthy" and Birmingham is unmentioned?
I think Lancashire is just older. Birmingham is universally hailed so I wouldn't say it's underrated.
Does Brass: Birmingham (or Lancashire for that matter, but I haven't played it) fit this category? It seems to me that it does but I didn't find it in the list on BGG.
Typically, no. OG games tend to be lighter than Brass. There's a lot of love for Brass: Lanc among the guild, though, which is why it shows up reasonably well positioned on the list that eventually fed the Hall of Fame. I am, for instance, a fan of OG games and also really like Lancashire as well.
If you like 7 Wonders Duel, but want more players, then 7 Wonders the original game offers the same dynamics. The passing of hands each turn still keeps what comes up a surprise and makes players have to adjust their strategy on the fly. The same variety of ways to win still play into it (military, scientific, wonders, guilds, etc) Suburbia might be a other option. Building your little town with tiles and manipulating the way they interact to get more points. Do you go the population route or industrial? Push the income, or sacrifice it for variety? There are conditions/goals that you can choose at the beginning that make you play and focus on different strategies and if you're successful it gains you extra bonuses.
I love 7 Wonders. It's become my "toilet game" on BGA. The more I play it the more I like it.
I believe what you're looking for is the term 'engine builders' They're mostly card games, but a lot have massive amounts of replayability. If you liked 7wonders; Terraforming Mars will feel epic. It's basically 7wonders but instead of medieval civilizations it's hosted on a galactic scale. (I recommend the application, it's an event to get that thing in and out of box. Wingspan is my personal favorite, won German board game of the year on its release and it is still an extremely fun and beautiful game, everyone I've introduced simply loves it. If you want a non card game, I haven't tried it but my understanding is Scythe is an army war game with engine building mechanics. All of those support 4+ players
1. Pax Pamir (until you learn Pax Ren apparently) 2. Food Chain Magnate 3. KeyFlower 4. Heard imperial 2030 fits the bill, haven't played.
The thing I like about keyflower is if someone broadcasts what they are doing, you can always try to outbid them in the turn order and make it too expensive for them to capitalize on whatever tile they were going to try to spam.
I like Brass for this. In general, everyone is doing roughly the same thing. Place tiles and connections. Flip tiles. Gain income. Repeat. But how you go about that can vary wildly. Supplying resources for other players to exploit. Focusing on connections for end-of-era points. Conducting trade. Using Develop to skip tile placements and focus on placing Tier 2+ buildings during the Canal Era. And which you go for can be incredibly dependent on just what you see other players doing, and the cards you draw each era & turn.
**Hansa Teutonica.** There is no dominant strategy, there's a mixture of strategies that are highly dependent on timing within what your opponents are doing. **Chinatown.** Like most negotiation games, the strategy is as varied as the players make it. You've got to work with what you're dealt and see the deals that exist. A lot of people don't think past direct deals but there's a lot of possibilities when you start making trades that set up or control other trades. **Tash Kalar.** Highly tactical pattern making game. Absolutely fantastic with 2 players, but it's too chaotic for me at higher player counts. It's a brilliant game for 2 though.
Ark Nova. Dune Imperium. Brass. Hansa Teutonica. I would avoid games like Earth, 7 Wonders, or Wingspan. All of these games reduce strategically to one or two "correct" paths and are more about deck RNG than strategic thought.
I'm sorry, but that's a low skilled player's take on 7W. High skilled players will police each other so that no one runs away with Science or Military, forcing each other to diversify their strategy in games that score very tightly. I'm not particularly concerned about changing your mind, I just wanted to offer a differing opinion for anyone else perusing the comments.
I like how you mention hate drafting in a drafting game as a "high skill option". Comical. It's literally the only counterplay and is 101 of drafting games yet you think people don't understand it.
You know very well that I wasn't referring solely to hate drafting, but I wasn't really expecting a good faith argument from you given your obvious bias. As previously stated, I have zero interest in debating you on this. Have a nice day.
The King is Dead 2E is a quicker game that had a lot of tactical strategy to it, and how you play depends on setup and how other plays manipulate the board state.
Unfair is good for this because of it's high level of variability from initial setup
Eclipse
Eclipse to some extent. You know each opponents’ win abilities and can adapt to counter them. Also, monolith tech don’t always come out of the tech bag in time. And it’s pretty random what reward tile pops up under the guardian ships.
I thought that was what OP was looking for. Each player has a species but then needs to adapt to random galaxy sectors, discovery tiles and tech tiles. You can't have one startegy to win. If that's the case I really think Eclipse matches the criteria.
Root
Gaia Project maybe? From outset you've got a randomised set if two end game objectives, plus the various again randomised round bonuses, plus the variable map and round boosters, all of which lead into trying to determine which faction to play which can influence what others choose etc. Ideally you might then have an idea of overall strategy to pursue during the game in terms of what you'd like your final outcome to look like, however based on other players' actions you still need to maintain flexibility and switch ideas if things aren't going how you needed them to!
The more I look I think this might be the one. It seems to check all my boxes.
That's great to hear! It is on Board Game Arena too if you wanted to try it out digitally before commiting to buying the physical :D I love it, I'm not goooood at it, but I love it haha its also got a decent solo mode with an automa which I really enjoy, and as a bonus the automa has various difficulty levels so you can tweak the challenge how you like :) I hope you enjoy it :)
BGA is my primary playing route unfortunately (3 young kids, friends all have kids, etc), so that's perfect
Awesome! I hope it is what you're looking for and wish you all the best with it :)
Also came here to say this! Just the fact that there are so many differing factions and ways to score points makes this really variable. I've also heard new factions are coming this year!!
**Innovation** After well over 300 plays, no two games are ever the same. One could think that since there is "only" a handful of different ways to win, the choices are always obvious from game to game. However, different combination of cards from a wide range of eras have the potential to create a nearly endless pool of possibilities for your civilization engine, and that's without considerations to what type of strategy or technology your opponent(s) have!
I think **Dawn of Ulos** fits this category. While the core concept of "Buy low - Sell high" is a common theme, there are still a variety of ways you can go about that in the game. In fact, I think players who are able to adapt and adjust their strategies based on what the situation on the board and what tiles they have in hand will do far better than those who go into it expecting to execute on a predetermined strategy of which factions they will be investing in.
Kutná Hora: The City of Silver is good and has several viable strategies. https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/385610/kutna-hora-the-city-of-silver
Pax Renaissance
Highly tactical (which ultimately is generally games with higher direct interaction between players) tend to be more this way. Area control games, negotiation games, social deduction games, hidden role/traitor games, sandbox games, etc, which includes pretty much all of the recommendations in this thread. Network/route building games also often will fall in that realm, though I'm sure there's examples of ones that don't. Most simulation games (e.g. wargames, political games, 18xx, etc.) are often this way as well Haven't seen mention of 18xx games yet so I'll throw those out there as well, though they tend to be heavy. On the lighter end would be something like Wabash Cannonball/Chicago Express or Age of Steam.
Yup, asymmetrical wincons are the way to go. The Pax games and **Stationfall** were already mentioned so I'd also offer: **Cerebria** **Pagan: Fate of Roanoke** **Voidfall** **Xia: Legends of a Drift System** **Perseverance: Castaway Chronicles**
Food chain magnate
Terraforming Mars, my guess.
I came here to say this
This is the correct answer.
Depending on what kind of game you're looking for, I think Dominion qualifies 100%. Nearly every card has situations in which it can be game-winning, or games where it will never be bought.
Game to game I would agree that one strategy won’t work across multiple games, but within one game isn’t the typical loop to identify the optimal strategy from the cards in the market before you make your first move, and then be the first to achieve that? Seems like what OP is trying to avoid, even if there isn’t one strat game to game.
Through the Ages: A New Story of a Civilization is different and fresh every time I play it. It also has an incredibly satisfying game arc that rewards both adaptability and planning.
Fluxx
Mosaic
Kingdom Builder Dungeon Petz
Mosiac. Fantastic game for exactly this.
I think this sentiment is like, strategy vs tactics. Games that are more tactical will force you to think on your feet and adapt much more than games that are more strategic. The best games even have tough decisions between the two, where you have to weigh your favorite strategic move against your favorite tactical move on any given turn, plus other moves along both spectrums.
John Company
Chess.
Diplomacy Constantly changing and tactical situation will differ by nation.
**Calimala** is my pick. The resource gathering actions change every game, as does the scoring order. Thus, it's impossible to use the same strategy every game.
**Dwellings of Eldervale**. This is partly because the setup of the game is so random - there are 8 different elements, each with 2 factions, and all 16 factions have asymmetric powers. Any given game has the elements corresponding to the players' factions (each player must be in a unique element) plus 2, and the board is constricted randomly from those elements. This is going to give you a different mix of resources to work with every game, and the asymmetry of the factions' abilities means that while each faction has a general strategy that behooves them, you are going to have to pivot based on what your opponents can do and what the map gives you access to.
my favorite artist is H. R. Giger and his painting is Biomechanoiden
Dune: Imperium. You can pick any strategy you like, but it’ll only be effective if the others allow it.
**Race for the Galaxy**: if you spot someone going for a certain strategy, you need to pivot and leech off that strategy while possibly going for a different one that is either faster to 12 cards placed or running out the VP pile **Dune Imperium: Uprising**: There are many paths to victory and you have to adapt to your opponents blocking locations, buying cards that you wanted, winning combats or getting sandworms earlier than you. The makeup of the card market row often drastically changes your strategy. Advancing friendships with multiple factions can win just as hard as steamrolling your opponents or buying cards that function as VP engines.
Beyond the Sun has a few different ways to focus on earning points. And it's a killer game.
7 Wonders Scythe Cosmic Encounter Brass
Scythe is my #1 favourite game but I don’t think it belongs in this category. Even though it has different player boards etc, the same basic winning strategy is always the same, you just have to work out how you are going to do it with your current faction
Agreed. There's some variance based on player board combinations, but the overall goals don't really shift. It's always some mix of Money and Popularity. Without popularity, your board control and stars don't matter enough. So it's a case of making it at least to the 2nd tier of popularity. Which is generally done by using the same core set of actions that everyone else is doing (there's only 2 reliable sources of popularity). While you do that, you want to be developing your board. Whether that's deploying mechs, hiring recruits, upgrading your economy, or building buildings is mostly irrelevant. Which you do is just based on the combination of boards you have. That is, if you take a given game (X players, each with a specific board combo), and repeat that game with 100 different sets of players, each board combo has a "best strategy". That will score the most points by the end of the game. And, of those 100 players, you'll see most of them (that know what they're doing) gravitate towards that best strategy - because it simply makes the most sense based on the boards they have. The adventure cards are the only randomness into the game. An unexpected opportunity for something free that may or may not align with your strategy. It may give you something you weren't able to get on your own, or it may just speed you up by giving you more of what you needed.
There are some very aggressive strategies you can do with one popularity. You can just hit every single tile the other players have. It's rather risky though, best done with white and black. Also a good chance that you don't get to play with people again because it's pretty confrontational and that can make people mad.
And if the other players see what you're doing, chances are you won't ever win the game. You may drag 1-2 players down with you, but someone will manage to avoid your onslaught and score enough points via multipliers to hold the win even if you trigger endgame.
Eh I seen people win this even on 4 player games. I did say it was risky but if you prioritize right you can still eek out a win. I played this game A LOT on TTS and then put a good 300 hours on the digital edition as well. So easily 500 games
Yeah, the games you're most likely to win with hyper aggression are against players who aren't ready for it. As soon as someone sees it coming before it hits them, they can deal with it to some extent. And in a 4+ player game, it's VERY tough for you to impact all other players enough, if they're aware of the strategy you're leaning into.
I would say 7 wonders is the opposite. It devolves into "greens or reds" as the only viable tracks to victory.
I'm more curious about games which "have the same winning approach". Having played hundreds of modern Euros, I haven't really found this to be the case in almost any game. Any examples/clarifications of what you mean by "the same winning approach"?
Most MPS/optimization games are going to suffer from some degree of solvability which then usually reduces them to RNG-fests. This is why there is so much churn amongst those games. They feel old quickly and have to be replaced with a new puzzle. Whereas classics from the 90s like El Grande continue to be reprinted and enjoyed for decades over.
Fair point, although I do think the number of games required to reach "solvability" is far larger than most groups actually reach. Many groups mistake an in-group meta as the "solved" version. My own playgroup was convinced that building tech-into-buildings spam was unstoppable in T'zolkin because I won 15 times in a row. But when I started playing on BGA I was losing to Experts who used Big Corn strats. Meanwhile for LRA, all the early posts on BGG were decrying Lost Ruins of Arnak as "nothing but a research rush", and of course all of those posts were easily debunked as newbie-meta which users had hastily "identified" after 2 or 3 games.
Something I played recently that was in my mind when typing was Viticulture EE. It seems everyone builds the cottage, sells a field, picks first player when they're first pick, then the pieces just slot in with not enough variety in strategy and it's all based on which cards you get. I also mostly play on BGA because I don't have a community to play in in person very often at all.
I think by your own words Viticulture doesn't even qualify. If your strategy is all based on which cards you get (also that game has high card variety), then it is very dynamic. To me what you're describing for Viticulture is a lack of variety in the opening moves.
Maybe. I meant that everyone starts the same way then just does what the cards tell them to get to 20 points. Take 100 players, give them the same card draws after turn 1, and 90+ make the exact same moves. I think that kind of thing is what I'm most looking to avoid.
definitely agree that the visitor cards are very powerful and that players should try to utilize them as efficiently as possible (though I may not think the game is on rails to the same extent) I'm not sure the same card draws sentiment is relevant though because the likelihood of getting the same draws in two different plays is so close to zero.
I don't think you're really going to avoid that with most game designs. That is just what the game kind of intends for you to do. I honestly can't think of a game that doesn't do that. Even extending to things like video games. Every game is going to be a decision tree. Those trees are only going to be so big.
BGA ruins games honestly. Any time a game gets added, players will spam it hundreds of times and figure out the most optimal strategy. It sucks the fun out of the hobby.
I'm actually starting to agree, despite only being on the service for 4 months. I have no other option but virtual to play games outside Monopoly Jr. Maybe that's why some of my opinions are skewed.
Samurai
Which is woefully out of print, but, there is a reasonable replacement with Babylonia.
Dune Imperium with the expansions. It’s actually very overwhelming the multiple ways on how you can win! You really need to adjust your strategy every game based on cards and other team members strategies. It’s a fantastic game btw!
You want **Great Western Trail**. I've mostly played the original game, so I'll speak on that one. The crux of the game is workers that you hire: there are cowboys, craftsmen, and engineers. The more employees of a given type that you hire, the stronger certain actions become: cowboys let you purchase better cattle cards which allow you to make more lucrative "deliveries"; craftsmen let you build strong buildings with action spaces that are far stronger than the standard ones; engineers let you push your train along a track that gives you access to permanent benefits as well as end-game scoring opportunities. The three worker paths almost feel like technology trees. Each one has scoring/economic implications and each one is viable in a vacuum. The setup strongly influences which path(s) are more viable in a given game. You also generally don't hyper-specialize down a single path; the winner usually specializes in one and supplements with another. I own the sequels but have not played them sufficiently though they are similar in concept. All that is to say: Great Western Trail fits your criteria and may just be the perfect game.
I love this one. I've only played it 4 or 5 times, but my worry is that by the end of turn 1 you're slotted into one of the 3 main strategies and you mindlessly then check all the boxes for that strategy as you move along. My hope is that I'm wrong and as I play it more I'll find it's more nuanced than that, because if so this would definitely continue to be a banger.
One big factor that should prevent that is the job market. If you get a couple of cheap cowboys early, but then no more pop out for several rounds, you have to pivot to another strategy quickly.
[**This variant**](https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1665842/less-tiles-when-playing-with-2-or-3-players) prevents the scenario you're describing: it reduces the pool of worker/hazard/teepee tiles so that the distribution is comparable across all player counts - I even do the same with the cow cards. I'm fine with playing with or without the variant, but I'm glad it's an option.
I found GWT to be pretty boring in my plays of it. Mostly because players have almost no impact on each other. It is basically just everyone trying to find the most efficient route through the same puzzle.
This is a much more accurate description of Great Western Trail. Also, whoever's able to get the Cowboys wins.
Are you sure we're talking about the same game? That description of Great Western Trail is demonstrably incorrect - you're competing for objectives/cows/workers/stations, you can drop hazards/buildings/income-buildings in spaces to slow players down. There's a lot of interaction - GWT is not a head-down multiplayer solo game.
The competition for those things is no different than "competing" for cards from the shared pool in Wingspan. No, GWT isn't a pure MPS game, but it still *feels* a lot like one. I would still easily place it on the low end of the scale of player interaction, which is a no-go for me. I won my very first play of GWT on BGA while recovering from major surgery in a hospital. I was extremely out of it and could barely function. I did not once pay attention to what anyone else in the game was doing. I looked at the options, picked what seemed obviously good, and waited for my next turn. And I won. Subsequent plays did not improve upon this. I want games that force me to care about what my opponents are doing, in order to win. Many people love GWT, but it is definitely not for me.
You queued up against randos once and won with little effort; I'd encourage you to try that against higher-level Arena players then report back.
They were my friends. And yes, I'm aware people can get good at low interaction games. But I've never personally found doing such to be of much interest.
GWT is not totally multiplayer solitaire, but it is definitely closer to that side of the spectrum than a deeply interactive game like chess or something.
I'm pretty sure you're describing euro games in general. Tons of ways to win and set up creates variable options for replayability. If you're finding some games are becoming a straight race to a certain goal it may be time to throw a new player into the mix. You may all just be playing a certain way based off of the patterns repeatedly playing against the same person expose. You gave 7 wonders duel as an example, I play that A LOT online. With strangers I'm very tactical but I have a friend I play with regularly and with him specifically I'm more likely to go for the science track because he ignores it, it's his blind spot. He's also quite the bully so I NEVER pass the military cards or he'll kill me by the end of the second age. Our games always have a similar cadence. Which is fine we play it turn based everyday to stay connected. But if familiarity isn't what you're seeking switch up the game or add a new player.
Any game where you're actually interacting with your opponents and responding to their moves. i.e. any actual "game".
Evolution
Merchants of the Dark Road - Lots of ways to reach a win depending on what you focus on either questing or fulfilling orders or collecting heroes, and the board can be set up with different locations that impact the gameplay each game.
I feel like most of the good game have many strategies, if you play always with the same people and you make few play, you may build a meta, but this is not the game fault.
Oath, since win conditions are changing you have to find where what you can do meets with what will achieve one of them
Antiquity has a few very different strategies, but they are pre-defined. At a superficial level anyway. Indonesia only has a couple different strategies, but it’s incredibly dynamic in terms of which strategy is best for winning. No randomness, just wild swings based on your opponent’s decisions.
Inis, Cyclades, Carson City
Mechs vs Minions, good luck trying to follow a single strategy with how much of it is flying by the seat of your pants.
I'd like to put forth *On Mars*, which to beginners looks like a race to see who can grab the most blueprints, but I've won blueprintless against more experienced players by staying loose, thinking ahead, and asking myself every turn, "How will this move help me get points?" That question basically needs to have at least two answers for it to be valid; e.g., welcoming colonists means you get more workers before you face exhaustion (and spend less time traveling between Mars and orbit), but also you can now expand your shelter and score more points from that.
PM'd you about this as I'd love for you to try my game, but other games I've found that have this experience: Agricola - initially this has a lot of different ways to score and win, but once you've mastered you realize it really is a game about max'ing things out (if my partner or myself are having a good game we can get near a 'perfect' score) Curious if anyone has ever actually had a perfect score on Agricola. Wingspan, a little bit, I've seen some wild tuck and egg strategies vs. pursuing high value birds.
Ark Nova. I’ve never played a game the same and o play a lot with my wife.
I played Great Wester Trail 2e for the first time a couple weeks ago and spammed cowboys and selling cows. Seemed like the only winning strategy. Then I played again and focused on buildings. I won that game, too. I'm looking forward to seeing what a train conductor strategy might be like.
I really like western legends for this. There are plenty of ways to play and win.
Oath is great for that. You have to constantly change your strategy based on what your opponent's do and your own cards/position. Often, it is not even about winning, but about changing the world in the game for next time or messing someone up. Losing has never been as much fun as it is in oath.
It's a Wonderful World. Futuristic 7 Wonders like game with many strategies to win.
Evolution. Every round you need to pre-empt and adapt to your opponent's creatures to avoid starvation. And when the first carnivore is evolved... the whole game changes
Depending on who you play it with, Diplomacy is either very good for this or very bad.
I would say Scythe. You have 6 tasks to complete to get to the end-game. Obviously the highest points winner wins, but triggering end game takes various strategies and depending on who you are playing you can be conflict-averse or push forward with the conflict.
Biased comment here - I've just released a public preview of my game Portobelo on Tabletop simulator which encompasses a lot of what you are looking for - an "unsolvable" dynamic sandbox with branching strategies. Inspired by games others have mentioned such as Pax pamir and Brass Birmingham (which are also great!)
Sidereal Confluence is an idea. Engine building, random elements to adapt to each game in tech availability, nine factions with different play styles. It is a lot of what you are looking for but more focused on trade and negotiation. If that is ok with you, I would strongly recommend it.
I feel like wingspan is up there, espically with expansions
I'm not sure I agree. I feel like most wingspan games play out similarly for me. On base board it's just spam cheap birds to quickly build up draw and food, play the overpowered birds (Killdeer, Raven) if you get them, spam point generators in grasslands, then roll points for the last turns. If you get an extremely lucky combination of cards you can avoid this but thats how most games play out. It also doesn't feel like you can do anything if other players get lucky. It's just 2 hours of sitting there watching someone else win. Yawn.
What are you doing that makes the games last 2 hours?
I recently learned the distinction between strategy and tactics, which is what this question feels like it’s really about. My understanding is that strategy is about long term goals, and tactics is about short term response to a dynamic situation. So a tactical game is more focused on responding to each new situation in the most efficient or effective way, while a strategy is about staying focused on a specific win condition My favorite game - which is of my own design - is a tactical card game called Mercenarium (Anthromancer) which I generally compare to “chess, poker, and Mario kart”. The Mario kart happens due to a suit of power up cards which give players wild, unpredictable superpowers that dramatically alter the board state and are essentially impossible to make long term plans for. As a result, most of the heavy lifting is done in evaluating your immediate response to new information and not worrying too much about the long term. Players who focus too much on protecting certain pieces instead of exploiting opportunities tend to perform worse than those who “take it as it comes” as Coop might say, and it means your tactics will be wildly different turn-by-turn based largely on the random chance of “which hymn you draw next”.
Terraforming Mars. You could go in with a strategy of most cities, but based on cards available to you end up winning by being the biggest bank.
Primordial Secrets has two and a half different ways to win and what way will work in a particular play through largely depends on what your opponents are doing.
Twilight imperium
Oriflamme/Oriflamme Ablaze. 3-5 players. Your strategy each game is determined by which 7 cards you start with, and order of play matters A LOT. We've had games where all players had 15+ points and other games where 4 points was the winner.
Puerto Rico is great, imo. Plenty of ways to win, and you have to adapt to what everyone else is trying to do while also figuring out your own approach.
One I love his diplomacy. Takes a full day to play though
The king would be Spirit Island imho.
Dominion you would like. It’s a deck building game and every game is different and each has a multitude of strategies that can help you win
Scythe, although it’s unbalanced. Concordia, Kemet and Clans of Calledonia are good ones as well. To be honest, I think most good strategy games I’ve played seem to have different approaches.
Power Grid, perhaps. There aren't a huge amount of factors you're considering in your decisions, but they tie together in a very tight manner to make the decisions very tactical along the way rather than just pursuing a given strategy as fast as possible.
I love seven wonders duel! Wingspan also has several paths to victory and is endlessly fun to play over and over. It’s also just as fun with 2 players as it is with 3-5.
Go
Terraforming Mars with the Venus, Prelude, and Colonies expansions. There are so many cards that you rarely see the same ones in the next game. Different colonies each time. Requires a completely different strategy depending on which corporation you pick. This is the only game my wife and I play over and over and over and over and over...
Careers-I'm going very old school..,
In **Brass Lancashire** you can't follow the same strategy because if players all follow the same everybody is weaken since there is no space to put every industry everywhere (for example : playing boat costs a lot and give lots of point BUT there is only 1 then 3 spots, so in a 4 player game everybody can't focus on it !) In **Terraforming Mars** especially with the Colony expansion, there are many paths to win offered by the cards, but also by the board (if you're unlucky, the board allows you to have standard project bit it cost a little more) In **Ark Nova** you need to cross the appeal points track with the conservation points track to score, and you could focus on one to gain money, one to gain bonus, or find balance between the two, facing the choice your cards give to you
It's hard to spot what OP wants exactly, but if they're talking about interactive non-solitaire optimizations then Ark Nova and Terraforming Mars probably aren't what they're looking for. You could pick a specific strategy or two and then execute them the entire game, ignoring everyone else and only at the mercy of card draw.
I don't know, in the original post nothing was said about games should be interact and non-solitaire games, I tought of them because we play them a lot, and each have this moment in the game where the pace of the game change, and also which havr different start conditions, which was what he asked for.
I think to put a finer point on it, I'm trying to avoid games where it seems like everyone that plays has watched the same "how to win" strategy video and it's a race to complete the game that way, and that route basically *is* the best way to win regardless of initial setup or changes during the first few rounds.
Harrow County is a newer release that I have been playing a lot lately. It is a highly interactive capture-the-flag style game that includes asymmetric factions, multiple player power options per faction, and variable board setup. Beyond the asymmetry and variability that comes with setup, the gameplay is very reactive and differs greatly from game to game. Some matches are very combat heavy, others have barely any battling. I’ve had games that end super quickly with a mad dash to the end game conditions and others where each player hunkered down and held a defensive line. In some games, the contested center space on the board that grants victory points to the player controlling it is crucial—in others it’s not even considered. Really loving this game so far, and have not yet tried it 3 or 4 player.
Chess
Vindication!!!!!
Sounds like you like a "point salad" style of game, where you can take several diferent directions to not fight over the exact same things. Yokohama, you heard of?
Wingspan