I have a quick question. The rules say that the tiebreaker for a milestone is: "In case of a tie for fulfilling a milestone's condition, first compare the tying players' money, and then (if money is equal) points. Whoever has less wins the tie!"
It sounds like both the comparison for money and the one for points is won by the player with fewer, but it doesn't sound like that should be the case, it seems off to me. I don't quite understand the Balance of having spent all of your money resulting in you winning a tie. I do understand the lower points though.
Hello Henrik. Thanks a lot for your input. It is a very important question I asked myself many times.
The idea behind this rule is to favor more risky players. Generally in Capital it is safer to not buy a tile in last round of an epoch and save money for the next epoch. It is like that beacuse when you have four new tiles at the beggining of next epoch they are usually stronger and you have more choice so you can execute your strategy better.
Moreover giving a benefit (milestone in this case) to the richest player can be also in some situations a little bit pro "snowballish" if you know what I mean. So it works similar to the "less points win something" mechanism in many games like this. The choice whether you want to have more points and be closer to the victory or receive some benefit and try to catch up with others because of that later is an interesting one in my opinion. I like to have the choices like this during the game.