Best building game in the world. Actually, best game period.

...and the game rewards you for playing well by letting you KEEP your stones on the board.

It's only when you play poorly that you have to suffer their removal.

Hmm...I think I'd rather build a barn with my forehead. If this is what building games are defined by, can someone point me to the deconstructing games?

I see what you're saying. The buildings are all about equally expensive. You can afford almost any of them in the first turn. Still, as you build more, you're building up an increasingly powerful engine. For example, building the building that lets you make rum, and then the one that lets you convert rum to victory points. Or the one that lets you earn more water, and the one that lets you convert water to victory points. However, it does seem like the game is pretty short. It ends when you've only gotten to put your complete engine into practice once or twice. That's typical of Euros, though. Rather than let you sit back, relax, and enjoy the fruit of all your labors, they take the attitude that the challenge is the thing. It's already clear who's built the best. End the game, and start a new challenge.

Yes, but at least in San Juan you get to use your good buildings... If Cuba were a bit longer, so you could run your engine a bit more, it would be better. But of course it's designed the way it is, and wouldn't work any other way.

I found the only way to win is to be the builder, but to be wise in where/what you build. If you leave it undefended from your enemies or your people, you will lose it... stage 1 build, stage 2 defend.

I liked this one alot, and share your dislike of losing things I've built... losing buildings to peasant farmers who just destroy it... just because... does get to me, but I seldom lose my buildings to farmers in this one.

Shogun reminds me of musical chairs - I take yours, you take mine, changing chairs until the game stops. Whoever survives the winter best wins... Blah.

I see a trend toward this. Notre Dame is similar. There is a (very abstract) building aspect in getting your cubes out on the board and getting good multiplied benefits on actions. There's also a nagging destructive element that you have to keep tabs on: the rats. Even the cubes and the money, while technically something you build up, feel instead like you're trying to avoid going broke. Having ten cubes in your supply doesn't let you do anything really cool; you can only place one at a time. There is one thing that you can do with lots of coins, which is get extra points at Notre Dame, but that's it. With coins and cubes, the main thing is to make sure you always have one when you need it.

I think it's a good trend in that it's new and different. Also, I have to scold myself for being a bit shallow, wanting a game that's "easy" enough that I can successfully build a lot of stuff. But I do really prefer that.

This is an area control game. Definitely not a builder game.

And what's more, it's an area control game where you can easily lose position in areas. After all, there are area control games where the cubes you play aren't as easily swept away.

But indeed, area control games aren't the best for builder types. I know I sold my copy of El Grande, even though I think it's a good, even almost great - in theory. I do like Mexica, but there nobody can remove your pyramids...

I'm with you. I like Blue Moon City, which is an area majority game, but with a soft edge. Even if you don't get the majority, you still get something. And you can sometimes guarantee the majority if you want, because there is a fixed maximum number of cubes.

I contrast with Mission: Red Planet, where you can send five cubes to a region, and then somebody can decide they want to send 11.

I didn't like El Grande either, although I imagine in time I could learn to play competently.

People who approach this as a war game first and a building game second don't do well. It is a building game first and a war game second. The most efficient route to points is economy and building, not conquest. The fighting arises out of two factors. One, you need military to proceed down the economic path. Armies or navies are needed for expanding to new territory, even neutral territory. Navies are needed for claiming the seven seas points. After these have served their purpose, they may as well go attack someone if they're undefended. Two, there aren't enough points on the board for everybody to win. You will most likely need to fight for your last one or two points.

For some reason this just didn't do it for me. I've played once and I've had no real interest to try again. But the city you build is pretty cool, that much I agree.

Agreed, and I like On the Underground -- recently got a copy in a trade, in fact. But even better is a more strategic game like Railroad Tycoon, where I can plan from the beginning, and the challenge is to make it all happen according to plan!

I don't get a sense of building out of this one, because the routes meander so under the control of every player. Nothing on the board really feels like it's mine.

I like the game anyway, quite a lot; it just doesn't scratch my builder-itch.

Yes, this is definitely one of the games I was thinking about adding to the list. This is a game where you can feel you've succeeded even if you lose (especially if the game isn't cut short by quickly connected temples).

would have never thought of this as a building game.

Pretty minimal sense of building. The arrangement of your floors is only linear. Lost Cities has as much building as this.

I am a builder, and I don't think this game (or her sisters) fit. Tikal definitely doesn't. These games are more about area control than building.

Like I said before, I think Mexica works, in a way at least. Tikal not as much (sold mine away). At least Mexica is one of the least offensive area control games for a builder =)