$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 123.61

7,391 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
46.6% of Goal | left

Support:

Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
9 Posts

Capital» Forums » Rules

Subject: Question about simultaneous construction rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Petri Savola
Finland
Espoo
Unspecified
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
I picked a copy of Capital up from Essen a few days ago and I really like the game. I've already played it 3 times. However, we have one major problem with the rules:

We very often ran into the situation that there's a tie for a milestone's condition. Because the first tiebreaker for ties is money, all players are interested in how much other players have. Placement of the last city tile is simultaneous, but at the same time it affects the amount of money player has, which means that it really cannot be simultaneous. So if players are waiting for each other with the simultaneous placement, who will have to place first?

We came up with different solutions for this problem, such as using a different tiebreaker (not money) for milestones, such as number of tiles in your city or victory points. Or then specify some order for the simultaneous placement if there's a conflict of interest.

Any official take on this?
1 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Question about simultaneous contruction
My unofficial take on it is that it can certainly be done simultaneously: in a case like this where players' decision might depend on what others are simultaneously doing, you can easily implement the simultaneity by having everyone cover their building tile with their hand and then simultaneously reveal their building face up (to indicate they are building it) or face down (to indicate they are not building it).
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Petri Savola
Finland
Espoo
Unspecified
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Question about simultaneous contruction
russ wrote:
My unofficial take on it is that it can certainly be done simultaneously: in a case like this where players' decision might depend on what others are simultaneously doing, you can easily implement the simultaneity by having everyone cover their building tile with their hand and then simultaneously reveal their building face up (to indicate they are building it) or face down (to indicate they are not building it).

We thought of this kind of solutions also, but it's hard to cover your whole board. Cost of the building can be anything from 0 to X because of the overbuild rules, so you would have to indicate whether you build the building and where you build it during the simultaneous placement and somehow hide this information from the opponent(s).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Question about simultaneous contruction
Petri wrote:
russ wrote:
My unofficial take on it is that it can certainly be done simultaneously: in a case like this where players' decision might depend on what others are simultaneously doing, you can easily implement the simultaneity by having everyone cover their building tile with their hand and then simultaneously reveal their building face up (to indicate they are building it) or face down (to indicate they are not building it).

We thought of this kind of solutions also, but it's hard to cover your whole board. Cost of the building can be anything from 0 to X because of the overbuild rules, so you would have to indicate whether you build the building and where you build it during the simultaneous placement and somehow hide this information from the opponent(s).

True, I was thinking only about the "to build or not to build" decision, and not "where to build".

But unless you're playing with cheaters, wouldn't it be sufficient for everyone to block their own area with one arm while looking at their own area as they place their tile face up on its location (to indicate build) or else face down (to indicate no build)?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Petri Savola
Finland
Espoo
Unspecified
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Question about simultaneous contruction
russ wrote:
But unless you're playing with cheaters, wouldn't it be sufficient for everyone to block their own area with one arm while looking at their own area as they place their tile face up on its location (to indicate build) or else face down (to indicate no build)?

Kind of, but it's a bit clumsy. And I was thinking whether this game would work in a tournament environment or not. There needs to be an explicit rule for the placement if it would be a tournament game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Filip Miłuński
Poland
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Question about simultaneous contruction
Petri thanks for your great question! I thought that through and I am pretty sure for the tournament play you will definately need some kind of player screens.

During playtest that problem never appeared. For normal play you just need to agree that all players really place their tiles simultanously though it allows cheating and placing a tile just a moment later than others.

So my advice would be the same as Russ's. Do not play with the cheaters or use player screens.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Petri Savola
Finland
Espoo
Unspecified
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Question about simultaneous contruction
Filippos wrote:
Petri thanks for your great question! I thought that through and I am pretty sure for the tournament play you will definately need some kind of player screens.

During playtest that problem never appeared. For normal play you just need to agree that all players really place their tiles simultanously though it allows cheating and placing a tile just a moment later than others.

So my advice would be the same as Russ's. Do not play with the cheaters or use player screens.

Thanks for the input.

I have a suggestion if you ever make 2nd edition of the game. Include numbers from 1 to 16 (small print somewhere in a corner) in the tiles and then use this number for determining the turn order if there's a conflict of interest for the simultaneous placement. That would in my opinion be very elegant solution to the problem but needs a minor addition to the tiles so doesn't work with the 1st edition.

EDIT: Actually, tiles do come with numbers, because each tile has money cost. Using money cost as the first tiebreaker for placement order would resolve most conflicts quite nicely, although not all of them.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Filip Miłuński
Poland
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Question about simultaneous contruction
Petri that is a very interesting idea but to be honest I think it would change the feeling of the game. I wanted it to be fast. Simultanous play is core of the game and there's a reson for it. Your idea would solve the problem but probably make the game longer.

Petri wrote:
Filippos wrote:
Petri thanks for your great question! I thought that through and I am pretty sure for the tournament play you will definately need some kind of player screens.

During playtest that problem never appeared. For normal play you just need to agree that all players really place their tiles simultanously though it allows cheating and placing a tile just a moment later than others.

So my advice would be the same as Russ's. Do not play with the cheaters or use player screens.

Thanks for the input.

I have a suggestion if you ever make 2nd edition of the game. Include numbers from 1 to 16 (small print somewhere in a corner) in the tiles and then use this number for determining the turn order if there's a conflict of interest for the simultaneous placement. That would in my opinion be very elegant solution to the problem but needs a minor addition to the tiles so doesn't work with the 1st edition.

EDIT: Actually, tiles do come with numbers, because each tile has money cost. Using money cost as the first tiebreaker for placement order would resolve most conflicts quite nicely, although not all of them.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Petri Savola
Finland
Espoo
Unspecified
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Re: Question about simultaneous contruction
Filippos wrote:
Petri that is a very interesting idea but to be honest I think it would change the feeling of the game. I wanted it to be fast. Simultanous play is core of the game and there's a reson for it. Your idea would solve the problem but probably make the game longer.

Yep, I wouldn't want to make the game slower either (one of the reasons why I like the game is that it's so fast), but I'm not sure if it would make the game slower. You could still keep the simultaneous construction rule but add a note for resolving conflict situations properly. Those situations are quite rare so you probably need conflict resolution only once or twice per game.

If there's no proper order specified, placement of the last tile can become outguessing which can possibly mean slower placement for the final tile because players need to guess what rivals are probably going to do.

EDIT: Another approach would be to use the numbers 1-16 as a tiebreaker for obtaining a milestone tile, regardless of whether you discarded or placed the last tile.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.