It seems so simple, this game. And it is. I can explain it in ten or so minutes, play it in 30-45 minutes.

How, then, did Dr. Knizia make it so deep at the same time? Th:is can be a serious brain-buster if you let it.

And, it is a favourite at game nights...is that because of the gameplay or components?

 I'd say it's both.

The gameplay is solid - I think it's actually underappreciated.
The components are the initial draw, I'll be honest.
You can get kids and even non-gamers attracted by the pastel camels with riders.

Have you ever played "Go"? The principles are similar. Surround territory with your pieces. Both games are also very simple to learn. Yet they have astonishing depth.

I think that one of the reasons that they have such depth is because they are so simple. There aren't a hundred different things that could change and affect your plans that you have to consider. That lets you make deeper and longer term plans.

Looks quite interesting, i love GO and now i would like to try TtD... I think i would like it.

psanfem said:

It is awesome! I have introduced it to a few people and they all did indeed enjoy it greatly.

reapersaurus said:

True, it's definitely both, isn't it?

I'd say that the game play is the more important one, but you gotta get people to try it and it really does stand out from other abstracts because of the neat components.

I've never played go; it seemed to be a little different from what I wanted from games.

I personally don't care much for Go either. It is a litte too deterministic, without really any variation in gameplay or the decisions you have to make. Every turn results in the same decisions that have to be made over again based on your opponents moves. While I can respect it as a good game, I don't happen to like it myself.

But as the basic principle of surrounding territory is the same, I still use it as a comparison.

I taught my daughter to play this game when she was 4, yes the colored camels are a nice draw. She is six now and is capable of providing a good challege. The most I have ever played with is three players- I can see the difficullty and need for strategy increasing with more players.

Camel placement is definately harder with 5 players, since the other players can often cut off 1 or 2 of your colors without even really intending to.

I've had this game for a while, but had only played it a few times.  Last Sunday, I introduced it to two new players in my new gaming group.  It went over quite well and I really enjoyed playing it again.  I think I'd like it to be one of the games in the core group that I bring to my gaming events.  Perhaps as a two player game it has some resemblance to the surrounding territory nature of Go, but the ability to make territory with more players is very minimal.  Also, the other goals of connecting to oases and water holes has no equivalent in Go.  And, the idea of stringing out your pieces in a line is antithetical to structural framework approach of Go. 

willco said:

Definitely the components.  How many other games give you little camles to play with?

Seriously!  I play with a group of guys that are all 40+ years old and the little camels are by far the main draw.  The game play isn't anything unusual.  It's like several other games including Go.  But then you don't have the little camels.

 TTD always reminds me of the old video game QIX more than Go.

 I need to get this one, I am just discovering Knizia games and they are pretty sweet I have to admit.   Camel meeples - sign me up

I have seen posts everywhere where people seems to really adore the cute plastic camels. I like the components in the game, they are very good with well crafted camels and a nice board, but don't like the colours. The game is good though...

Hendal said:

To me, meeples are all wood.  While I like this game, if you really want cameeples (or I prefer humples), then you gotta grab Oasis or Yspahan.  Yspahan is the better game, though.