Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
24 Posts

Archipelago» Forums » Rules

Subject: Coins placed when using a port or market rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
D Clevenger
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
What is the point of this? I can't see a reason to put a coin on the action wheel when using the market and port. What am I missing?

Thanks
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Denman
United States
Katy
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Then you know it's been used. For example, if I have two ports and I use one, by placing a dollar on the action wheel anyone can quickly sort out that I still have another port to use this turn if I want to.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
S. R.
Germany
Mainz
Rheinland-Pfalz
flag msg tools
It's a fearful thing, to fall into the Hands of the Living God!
badge
Tell me, have you found the Yellow Sign?
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The thing is, by using A port or A market, the player has not specified WHICH port or market he is using. However, this can be crucial during gameplay, and can also be confusing.

I would have found it better if these two nonsensical spaces on the board would have been left out, and instead markers would have been included to mark a building used. It also has the second merit to show which meeples on buildings are already "occupied"...

That's what I have done, anyways (included such markers)...
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Denman
United States
Katy
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dumon wrote:
The thing is, by using A port or A market, the player has not specified WHICH port or market he is using. However, this can be crucial during gameplay, and can also be confusing.


Why is this crucial and/or confusing? I've only played once but it seemed to work out fine as is.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
S. R.
Germany
Mainz
Rheinland-Pfalz
flag msg tools
It's a fearful thing, to fall into the Hands of the Living God!
badge
Tell me, have you found the Yellow Sign?
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Because you can do other stuff with meeples on markets/harbours, too. And this could very well change what another player would want to do in an area!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adrian Pirciu
Netherlands
Hoofddorp
North Holland
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Trump wrote:
Dumon wrote:
The thing is, by using A port or A market, the player has not specified WHICH port or market he is using. However, this can be crucial during gameplay, and can also be confusing.


Why is this crucial and/or confusing? I've only played once but it seemed to work out fine as is.


On topic, with the current rules there is a loss of information in that there is an information that is not tracked by any game mechanism: which ports or markets a player has already used. You just know how many, not which, and if I have 4-5 ports, it will be hard for me to memorize what ports have been used already during the current turn, and very hard for the others who also have other things to track on their side as well. So I agree with the additional used-buildings markers.

Now on the offtopic side, unfortunately this is not the only non-elegant design choice in this otherwise good game. It's not that some things do not work or are bad, but are not especially intuitive. For example the "active" and "engaged" statuses are intuitive in themselves, but it was hard for me to keep track of which action needs active/non-active and/or which action needs engaged/non-engaged units. Some actions need an active unit but do not engage that unit as well. So it's not only a matter of knowing the requirements for each action, but also the effect the action will have on the status of a unit.

And I would also say that I found Reproduction again non-intuitive, used with other eurogames (like Stone Age, Agricola) when after reproduction you would get a new worker that will give you a new action. Here, reproduction will only give you a new unit, not a new action disc. What I see as a norm for eurogames is that more workers = more actions. Here, actions are disconnected from the actual population, and you only get more after some exploration (which thematically doesn't really make much sense, you do more when you have more workforce not more land).

Aaaand, since I started with this, the fact that the population markers move (get syncrhonized) during their specific phase _but also_ during crises or other phases in the game is not particularly an elegant design. Looking at Through the Ages, or Endeavor or others, these kind of markers can at any point in the game be synchronized with the actual situation on the board. Here, there is no such synchronization.

I am not saying all these decisions are bad, just .. non-elegant in my view. Like the one from the original post.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
P. oeppel
Germany
Berlin
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
adixor wrote:

And I would also say that I found Reproduction again non-intuitive, used with other eurogames (like Stone Age, Agricola) when after reproduction you would get a new worker that will give you a new action. Here, reproduction will only give you a new unit, not a new action disc. What I see as a norm for eurogames is that more workers = more actions. Here, actions are disconnected from the actual population, and you only get more after some exploration (which thematically doesn't really make much sense, you do more when you have more workforce not more land).


Well, I somehow agreeing that keeping in mind all that engaged/non-engaged/active/non-active stuff is a bit difficult (note: after my first play, so I strongly expect this to improve )

However, I disagree that Reproduction is non-intuitive as you say. Obviously, it does increase your/the population, right? And, while not giving you more workers in terms of allowing you to pick more different actions, the increased size of your people will allow you to do stronger actions (e.g. harvest more during a harvest action, assuming that multiple resource spaces of that type are available). To some extent, they even allow you to do more actions as well because with two initial workers you cannot use the initially three actions discs with "engaging" activities (you could even engage both citizens with a single harvest action and then have two actions left). And citizens on markets and ports (which you can probably only afford if you have enough citizens for other tasks) will allow you to do additional trade actions.

So, reproduction (and recruiting) will give you more actions, just not in this totally direct way the games you cited do...
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
D Clevenger
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dumon wrote:
The thing is, by using A port or A market, the player has not specified WHICH port or market he is using. However, this can be crucial during gameplay, and can also be confusing.

I would have found it better if these two nonsensical spaces on the board would have been left out, and instead markers would have been included to mark a building used. It also has the second merit to show which meeples on buildings are already "occupied"...

That's what I have done, anyways (included such markers)...


Thanks for this. So would it make more sense to put the coin under the meeple on the port/market that was used? That would seem to fix the issue.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
S. R.
Germany
Mainz
Rheinland-Pfalz
flag msg tools
It's a fearful thing, to fall into the Hands of the Living God!
badge
Tell me, have you found the Yellow Sign?
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
txaal wrote:

Thanks for this. So would it make more sense to put the coin under the meeple on the port/market that was used? That would seem to fix the issue.


Yes and no.
I find that the coin can be quite easily overlooked when placed under the meeple on the building. Additionally, this would not take the "enganged" part of cities into account. That is why I included plastic markers to put next to the building(s).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adrian Pirciu
Netherlands
Hoofddorp
North Holland
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
pinoeppel wrote:
adixor wrote:

And I would also say that I found Reproduction again non-intuitive, used with other eurogames (like Stone Age, Agricola) when after reproduction you would get a new worker that will give you a new action. Here, reproduction will only give you a new unit, not a new action disc. What I see as a norm for eurogames is that more workers = more actions. Here, actions are disconnected from the actual population, and you only get more after some exploration (which thematically doesn't really make much sense, you do more when you have more workforce not more land).


Well, I somehow agreeing that keeping in mind all that engaged/non-engaged/active/non-active stuff is a bit difficult (note: after my first play, so I strongly expect this to improve ;) )

However, I disagree that Reproduction is non-intuitive as you say. Obviously, it does increase your/the population, right? And, while not giving you more workers in terms of allowing you to pick more different actions, the increased size of your people will allow you to do stronger actions (e.g. harvest more during a harvest action, assuming that multiple resource spaces of that type are available). To some extent, they even allow you to do more actions as well because with two initial workers you cannot use the initially three actions discs with "engaging" activities (you could even engage both citizens with a single harvest action and then have two actions left). And citizens on markets and ports (which you can probably only afford if you have enough citizens for other tasks) will allow you to do additional trade actions.

So, reproduction (and recruiting) will give you more actions, just not in this totally direct way the games you cited do...


Your analysis is right indeed. Seems more like a perception problem for me, as I expected a more direct, as you say, way to have more actions.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Denman
United States
Katy
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
adixor wrote:
Trump wrote:
Dumon wrote:
The thing is, by using A port or A market, the player has not specified WHICH port or market he is using. However, this can be crucial during gameplay, and can also be confusing.


Why is this crucial and/or confusing? I've only played once but it seemed to work out fine as is.


On topic, with the current rules there is a loss of information in that there is an information that is not tracked by any game mechanism: which ports or markets a player has already used. You just know how many, not which, and if I have 4-5 ports, it will be hard for me to memorize what ports have been used already during the current turn, and very hard for the others who also have other things to track on their side as well. So I agree with the additional used-buildings markers.


Um... I guess my followup question then is why do you need to know which port was used? The whole market mechanic is already a bit abstracted so I don't see any reason to get picky about which port you used.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thomas Leitner
United States
Madison
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Trump wrote:
adixor wrote:
Trump wrote:
Dumon wrote:
The thing is, by using A port or A market, the player has not specified WHICH port or market he is using. However, this can be crucial during gameplay, and can also be confusing.


Why is this crucial and/or confusing? I've only played once but it seemed to work out fine as is.


On topic, with the current rules there is a loss of information in that there is an information that is not tracked by any game mechanism: which ports or markets a player has already used. You just know how many, not which, and if I have 4-5 ports, it will be hard for me to memorize what ports have been used already during the current turn, and very hard for the others who also have other things to track on their side as well. So I agree with the additional used-buildings markers.


Um... I guess my followup question then is why do you need to know which port was used? The whole market mechanic is already a bit abstracted so I don't see any reason to get picky about which port you used.


It matters because the market or port used in a turn engages the worker on it, and therefore that worker cannot be used for anything else until disengagement.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Denman
United States
Katy
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MDJD wrote:
It matters because the market or port used in a turn engages the worker on it, and therefore that worker cannot be used for anything else until disengagement.


AHA! We missed that. Now I understand. Yes, it would be tricky to keep up with using the current system since it's hard to keep up with engaged units in general. You can't lay them down or they become rebels so maybe you could sort of stand them on their heads/shoulders?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
D Clevenger
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Trump wrote:
MDJD wrote:
It matters because the market or port used in a turn engages the worker on it, and therefore that worker cannot be used for anything else until disengagement.


AHA! We missed that. Now I understand. Yes, it would be tricky to keep up with using the current system since it's hard to keep up with engaged units in general. You can't lay them down or they become rebels so maybe you could sort of stand them on their heads/shoulders?


Agreed. That's why putting the coin under them would seem to make sense. Before you use the port/market check to see if there is a coin.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Boelinger
France
Nice
Unspecified
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
mbmbmbmbmb
adixor wrote:
Trump wrote:
Dumon wrote:
The thing is, by using A port or A market, the player has not specified WHICH port or market he is using. However, this can be crucial during gameplay, and can also be confusing.


Why is this crucial and/or confusing? I've only played once but it seemed to work out fine as is.


On topic, with the current rules there is a loss of information in that there is an information that is not tracked by any game mechanism: which ports or markets a player has already used. You just know how many, not which, and if I have 4-5 ports, it will be hard for me to memorize what ports have been used already during the current turn, and very hard for the others who also have other things to track on their side as well. So I agree with the additional used-buildings markers.

Now on the offtopic side, unfortunately this is not the only non-elegant design choice in this otherwise good game. It's not that some things do not work or are bad, but are not especially intuitive. For example the "active" and "engaged" statuses are intuitive in themselves, but it was hard for me to keep track of which action needs active/non-active and/or which action needs engaged/non-engaged units. Some actions need an active unit but do not engage that unit as well. So it's not only a matter of knowing the requirements for each action, but also the effect the action will have on the status of a unit.

And I would also say that I found Reproduction again non-intuitive, used with other eurogames (like Stone Age, Agricola) when after reproduction you would get a new worker that will give you a new action. Here, reproduction will only give you a new unit, not a new action disc. What I see as a norm for eurogames is that more workers = more actions. Here, actions are disconnected from the actual population, and you only get more after some exploration (which thematically doesn't really make much sense, you do more when you have more workforce not more land).

Aaaand, since I started with this, the fact that the population markers move (get syncrhonized) during their specific phase _but also_ during crises or other phases in the game is not particularly an elegant design. Looking at Through the Ages, or Endeavor or others, these kind of markers can at any point in the game be synchronized with the actual situation on the board. Here, there is no such synchronization.

I am not saying all these decisions are bad, just .. non-elegant in my view. Like the one from the original post.

You are totally right for the non elegance part, I agree. Now you have to know the reason why I kept it that way : simply because it is quite rare to control more than one port, and even more rare to control more than two ports. And I think between two ports you can specify which one you use, and remember it. But I agree there is no traces of what you used in case you own more than one.
Now try to see how many times you seem to encounter a problem with that, and if it never occurs, you will understand why I kept it that way and didn't add some extra component or mechanic or graphics...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
S. R.
Germany
Mainz
Rheinland-Pfalz
flag msg tools
It's a fearful thing, to fall into the Hands of the Living God!
badge
Tell me, have you found the Yellow Sign?
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ahem, Chris...
...not to rock your boat, but...
...if we take your reasoning (quite rare to control more than one port) further, it would mean that control of more than one market and city, and maybe even temple, is quite rare...

...but then, why are there game end conditions based on the number of buildings present, which are higher than 5?
...and why are there victory conditions that give you points for having the most buildings of a sort?

Just a thought, but isnt that not completely thought through, then?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thomas Leitner
United States
Madison
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
For one thing, buildings present are not necessarily controlled by anyone, and are therefore not functional.

The victory points are based on controlled buildings of the type depicted, which may normally be two or fewer. I haven't played enough to know what the norm is, but I'm betting Chris has.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John
United Kingdom
Norwich
Norfolk
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have to say I have been scratching my head about how to mark buildings used as well - the standing meeples on their heads seemed the most sensible. It has come up as a question before, and in a couple of games not exactly been a problem, but something that wasn't ideal. In a 5 player game where medium game endings are usually 7 of some building or other and long games are 8 of a building, by definition it means you can expect at least one player to have more than 1 of a certain building.

Remembering which building you used out of two is pretty easy - but given a heavy turn where there is lots of bickering - I mean co-operating - and negotiations go on a bit it can be easy to slip your mind.

It would be nice if the market and port counters, rather than be two sided with different buildings actually had a used side and an unused side. Then whenever you use one you could simply flip it over. I dunno, say unused is colour, and the used one is monochrome. This would be an easy mod to print up some custom counters.

In any case, great game.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adrian Pirciu
Netherlands
Hoofddorp
North Holland
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Chris Boelinger wrote:
adixor wrote:
Trump wrote:
Dumon wrote:
The thing is, by using A port or A market, the player has not specified WHICH port or market he is using. However, this can be crucial during gameplay, and can also be confusing.


Why is this crucial and/or confusing? I've only played once but it seemed to work out fine as is.


On topic, with the current rules there is a loss of information in that there is an information that is not tracked by any game mechanism: which ports or markets a player has already used. You just know how many, not which, and if I have 4-5 ports, it will be hard for me to memorize what ports have been used already during the current turn, and very hard for the others who also have other things to track on their side as well. So I agree with the additional used-buildings markers.

Now on the offtopic side, unfortunately this is not the only non-elegant design choice in this otherwise good game. It's not that some things do not work or are bad, but are not especially intuitive. For example the "active" and "engaged" statuses are intuitive in themselves, but it was hard for me to keep track of which action needs active/non-active and/or which action needs engaged/non-engaged units. Some actions need an active unit but do not engage that unit as well. So it's not only a matter of knowing the requirements for each action, but also the effect the action will have on the status of a unit.

And I would also say that I found Reproduction again non-intuitive, used with other eurogames (like Stone Age, Agricola) when after reproduction you would get a new worker that will give you a new action. Here, reproduction will only give you a new unit, not a new action disc. What I see as a norm for eurogames is that more workers = more actions. Here, actions are disconnected from the actual population, and you only get more after some exploration (which thematically doesn't really make much sense, you do more when you have more workforce not more land).

Aaaand, since I started with this, the fact that the population markers move (get syncrhonized) during their specific phase _but also_ during crises or other phases in the game is not particularly an elegant design. Looking at Through the Ages, or Endeavor or others, these kind of markers can at any point in the game be synchronized with the actual situation on the board. Here, there is no such synchronization.

I am not saying all these decisions are bad, just .. non-elegant in my view. Like the one from the original post.

You are totally right for the non elegance part, I agree. Now you have to know the reason why I kept it that way : simply because it is quite rare to control more than one port, and even more rare to control more than two ports. And I think between two ports you can specify which one you use, and remember it. But I agree there is no traces of what you used in case you own more than one.
Now try to see how many times you seem to encounter a problem with that, and if it never occurs, you will understand why I kept it that way and didn't add some extra component or mechanic or graphics...


Hi Chris

Thank you for your answer and for this very nice game. The fact that I have some concerns about some mechanics doesn't mean I don't like the game, as it is a very nice built and quite innovative game. Just to let you know :)

To get to your question, I understand that you thought it will not happen that often. Well, I've only played 3 times so far, and I am still learning the game (I mean trying to understand the things that I can do and when to do them). Out of these 3 games, in 2 games I have controlled at some point at least 2 ports. Maybe in normal scenarios (mine is not normal, I am still figuring out strategies and approaches) this happens less often. But I would still recommend to have a mechanic for every little thing in a game, and think about all possible scenarios, not only the ones that will be encountered more often. I understand you were trying to streamline things, which is good, but I would not streamline a game by removing things just because they will not happen that often.

And since we started this discussion here about game mechanics, I would like to point you to this thread as well:

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/888124/knowing-that-which-sh...

I would not like to discuss it here, but there are 2 more issues that are related to my concerns on mechanics and are interesting for a game-design point of view.



 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
X Shrike
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I still don't see what the issue is with marking which buildings you have used. You just need to know how many you control and not exceed that number of coins on the market or port space.

I could see this being an issue if where the port or market is on the map mattered but, as I read the rules that doesn't matter.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thomas Leitner
United States
Madison
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It is most certainly important. When you use a market or port, the worker on that building becomes engaged and cannot be used for anything else that turn. A worker on an unused building may be taken off that building to be used for something else such as harvesting.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Curt Carpenter
United States
Kirkland
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Putting the coin next to the actual market/port used seems the best solution to me. Why would you need to hide it under the meeple? Then just collect the $ during disengagement.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Edouard Lorenceau
France
Boulogne-Billancourt
Ile-de-France
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
There is one other thing that is important with putting it on the actions board: That money never returns to the bank.

This matters because some Game end conditions involve the bank running out of money!

That said, you could (and I play it like this) place the money next to the port/market, and then during next turn's disengage move those coins to the action board.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Murr Rockstroh
United States
Fleming Island
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
unreal_ed wrote:
There is one other thing that is important with putting it on the actions board: That money never returns to the bank.

This matters because some Game end conditions involve the bank running out of money!

That said, you could (and I play it like this) place the money next to the port/market, and then during next turn's disengage move those coins to the action board.


No, they go back to the bank at the beginning of Phase 6.

Rulebook page 13 top of page wrote:
Return all used action discs to their respective players. The 1f coins on the port and market zones of the action wheel go to the bank.
4 
 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.