The first time I truly understood the drafting dilemma in It’s a Wonderful World, I was three games in and thoroughly confused about my consistently mediocre scores. I’d been prioritizing high-point cards in every draft, building what seemed like an impressive empire filled with monuments and technological marvels. Meanwhile, Linda—who had been snatching up what looked like unexciting resource-generating factories and utilities—was outscoring me by 15+ points regularly. After one particularly lopsided defeat, I finally asked her strategy.
“You’re building a palace without a foundation,” she explained while gathering cards for another round. “I’m building the resource engine first, then the palace.” That simple insight completely transformed my approach to the game. Now, after 40+ plays (I’ve tracked each one in my game journal, much to the amusement of our regular group), I’ve developed what I think is a reasonably sophisticated understanding of the fundamental tension between resource generation and point accumulation that defines successful drafting in It’s a Wonderful World.
My gaming group has a running joke about my “resource spreadsheets,” a good-natured exaggeration of how methodically I now approach card evaluation. “David’s calculating krystallium efficiency again,” Pete will quip whenever I take more than fifteen seconds to make a draft selection. There’s some truth to the ribbing—I have become somewhat notorious for my analytical approach to drafting. But the results speak for themselves. That early pattern of defeats has given way to a much more competitive record that I’m rather proud of, though I’d never admit the precise win percentage for fear of being relentlessly targeted in future games.
The fundamental principle that guides effective drafting in It’s a Wonderful World is what I call “production curve alignment”—ensuring that your resource generation capabilities develop in sync with your construction needs. This might seem obvious in retrospect, but I’ve watched numerous experienced gamers fall into the same trap that initially ensnared me: drafting impressive-looking developments without sufficient resource infrastructure to efficiently build them. The result is inevitably a tableau filled with half-completed projects that generate neither resources nor points.
This principle of production alignment crystallized for me during a game where I’d drafted what seemed like a balanced mixture of resource-generating and point-producing cards. As the rounds progressed, I realized that while I had reasonable production across most resource types, my specific construction needs required concentrated production in materials and energy that my tableau couldn’t provide. Despite generating plenty of total resources, their distribution didn’t match my construction requirements, leading to numerous uncompleted developments. That painful experience taught me that resource diversity matters far less than targeted production aligned with specific building plans.
Early-round drafting establishes the foundation for your empire’s development and deserves more careful consideration than many players give it. Those initial selections disproportionately impact your production trajectory, with first-round resource generators potentially contributing materials for three or four consecutive rounds. I’ve found that successful players typically prioritize targeted resource production in the opening round, only selecting point-generating cards when they offer exceptional efficiency or synergize directly with an emerging strategy.
I remember watching Steve’s approach evolve over several months of regular play. Initially, he gravitated toward cards with impressive point values regardless of resource requirements. Over time, he developed a much more disciplined first-round approach, focusing almost exclusively on establishing production in 2-3 core resource types. His results improved dramatically with this more focused approach, demonstrating the value of prioritizing production foundations over immediate point potential in early rounds.
The drafting approach necessarily evolves across the four rounds, with resource and point priorities shifting as the game progresses. First-round drafting typically emphasizes production establishment, second-round balances production enhancement with initial point opportunities, third-round transitions toward point generation while filling production gaps, and fourth-round focuses almost exclusively on immediate scoring potential. Understanding this natural progression helps frame each round’s drafting decisions within appropriate strategic contexts.
This round-specific approach became particularly clear during a tournament setting (yes, I occasionally play It’s a Wonderful World competitively, which Linda finds endlessly amusing). Against skilled opponents, I noticed that nearly everyone followed a similar drafting pattern: first round almost entirely production-focused, second round roughly 70/30 split between production enhancement and initial point cards, third round shifting to a 40/60 split favoring point opportunities, and final round almost exclusively focused on immediately completable scoring cards. This consistent pattern across experienced players highlighted the natural strategic evolution that the game’s structure encourages.
The specific resource types present different strategic considerations for drafting prioritization. Materials and energy form the foundation of most construction requirements, making early production in these resources particularly valuable. Science and exploration typically support more specialized strategies, while krystallium’s universal application makes it valuable in almost any approach. I’ve found that successful empires typically establish strong production in at least two of the basic resources while maintaining at least minimal generation in a third, rather than attempting to diversify across all five types.
During a particularly successful game, I focused almost exclusively on materials and energy production in the first two rounds, deliberately passing on cards requiring other resources regardless of their point potential. This specialized approach allowed me to complete several high-value developments in subsequent rounds without the inefficiency of recycling or conversion. The focused resource strategy generated nearly 20 points more than my typical balanced approach, demonstrating how targeted production often outperforms diversification despite seeming less flexible.
The card recycling and character abilities create important strategic considerations for drafting. The ability to convert unwanted cards into specific resources through recycling means that even cards you don’t intend to build can provide strategic value if they convert to resources you need. Similarly, character abilities that enhance certain resource types or provide special conversion opportunities should inform your drafting priorities, sometimes making otherwise mediocre cards substantially more valuable within your specific empire.
My colleague Rachel, who approaches games with remarkable strategic clarity, developed what she calls “contextual valuation”—a framework for card evaluation that considers not just the card’s inherent properties but how it interacts with your character ability and recycling needs. This approach sometimes leads to counterintuitive draft selections, like taking cards with suboptimal point-to-resource ratios because they recycle into particularly needed resources, or prioritizing developments that might seem inefficient but synergize perfectly with character abilities. This contextual awareness adds a layer of sophistication to drafting decisions that goes beyond simple resource or point calculations.
The changing value of cards across different rounds creates fascinating temporal considerations for drafting. A card that provides materials production might be invaluable if drafted in round one but nearly worthless by round four. Conversely, a high-cost, high-point development might be undraftable in early rounds but become the perfect selection in the final round if you’ve established the production to complete it immediately. Understanding these temporal value shifts helps identify when particular cards reach their maximum utility within the arc of a given game.
This temporal sensitivity became apparent during a game where I passed on a 6-point development in round one, knowing I couldn’t possibly complete it in time for it to generate meaningful resources. When the same card appeared in my round three draft options, I snatched it immediately, as my production engine had developed sufficiently to complete it before game end. The identical card had transformed from a liability to an asset purely due to the temporal context of when it appeared. This experience highlighted how draft valuations must consider not just what a card does but when in the game’s progression it will become active.
The tension between immediate resource needs and long-term strategic development creates one of It’s a Wonderful World’s most interesting drafting dilemmas. Sometimes the theoretically “best” card for your long-term strategy requires resources you don’t currently generate, creating a choice between immediate efficiency and future potential. I’ve found that successful players typically favor immediate constructability in the first two rounds, only drafting resource-misaligned cards in later rounds when their production engines have developed enough flexibility to pivot toward new resource types.
During a game where I’d established strong materials and energy production, I faced a third-round choice between a science-dependent development with exceptional point efficiency and a slightly less efficient card that utilized my existing production types. Rather than pivoting to science production to enable the seemingly superior card, I selected the option that aligned with my established engine. This constructability prioritization allowed me to complete the development immediately, generating points and resources a full round earlier than had I attempted to shift production focus. The lesson was clear—a less impressive card that you can actually build generally outperforms a perfect card that remains under construction when the game ends.
The draft direction alternation between rounds creates interesting strategic considerations for hate-drafting and anticipating opponents’ needs. In rounds where you’ll receive cards passed from a particular neighbor, their obvious strategy might influence which cards you prioritize or which you’re willing to pass. This positional awareness becomes particularly important in the final round, where denying key completable developments to opponents can be as valuable as selecting optimal cards for yourself.
This directional awareness became a crucial element of strategy during games with our regular Friday group, where we all developed reasonably predictable drafting patterns over time. I noticed that Pete, who typically sat to my left, almost always prioritized exploration-based strategies. In rounds where I passed cards to him, I began making conscious decisions to hate-draft exploration-generating cards even when they didn’t fit my strategy, specifically to disrupt his production engine. This positional drafting sometimes meant taking subjectively “worse” cards for my own tableau but created enough disruption to his strategy to justify the opportunity cost.
The limited number of development slots (10) creates another strategic constraint that should inform drafting decisions. By the later rounds, these slots become precious real estate, making opportunity cost a crucial consideration. I’ve found that successful players become increasingly selective about development efficiency as the game progresses, sometimes passing on objectively valuable cards simply because they cannot justify dedicating a limited slot to them compared to other opportunities.
This slot awareness emerged as a crucial strategic element during a game where I entered the fourth round with only two open development spaces remaining. Despite seeing several valuable point-generating cards in the draft, I specifically selected options that I could complete within the round, rather than potentially higher-point developments that would remain unfinished. This slot efficiency focus meant passing on cards that might have seemed obviously superior in isolation but would have ultimately contributed nothing given my construction constraints. The resulting 10-point swing compared to my theoretical “optimal” draft demonstrated how slot limitations must factor into draft valuations, particularly in the later rounds.
The empire typing and synergy bonuses create another layer of strategic consideration for drafting. While the base game offers relatively modest synergy opportunities, the expansion materials introduce more significant rewards for building cohesive empires of specific types. These synergy potentials should inform draft prioritization, sometimes making otherwise mediocre cards valuable specifically for their contribution to empire coherence.
During a game with the expansion materials, I noticed early drafting had given me several financial developments. Rather than pursuing my typical balanced approach, I pivoted to specifically prioritize additional financial cards in subsequent rounds, even when they offered slightly less efficient point-to-resource ratios than alternatives. The resulting synergy bonuses more than compensated for the individual card inefficiencies, creating a specialized empire that outperformed what would have been possible with my usual diversified approach. This experience highlighted how draft priorities should adapt to emerging synergy potential rather than adhering to fixed valuation frameworks.
After all these games and all this analysis, perhaps the most important insight I’ve gained about drafting in It’s a Wonderful World is that the balance between resource generation and point accumulation isn’t a fixed formula but a dynamic equilibrium that shifts with each passing round. The players who consistently succeed aren’t those who rigidly prioritize either resources or points, but those who understand how this balance evolves throughout the game’s progression and adapt their draft priorities to align with their empire’s current development stage.
I still occasionally miscalculate resource needs or select developments that prove impossible to complete efficiently. But those mistakes have become rarer as I’ve developed a more intuitive understanding of how resource curves and construction requirements interact to create successful empires. There’s something deeply satisfying about watching a well-constructed production engine click into perfect operation, transforming a carefully curated collection of cards into a coherent empire that generates both resources and points with remarkable efficiency.
And really, isn’t that coherent system-building what makes It’s a Wonderful World so fascinating? The tension between immediate needs and long-term planning creates decisions unlike any other drafting game in my collection. Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to go convince Linda that we absolutely need to play “just one more quick game” before bed. I have a theory about krystallium conversion efficiency that I’m dying to test.
Leave a Reply