Game: Capitol

Thread: Re: Overproduced fix to the scoring columns problem

robmderrick — 2008-09-30T04:33:51+00:00

Well, we've used it a few times, and, yes, the numbers are small. But you only need one scorekeeper, and the other players can certainly read the relative scores by the positions of the columns. And like all game chrome, when it lends to the game color, which is what a lot of theme is - verisimilitude rather than true thematics, it adds to the experience.

Of course, it could simply suffer from "Invented Here" syndrome. I do like it a lot cuz' I made it. ;^) The other players seem to like it too, but, they've never played it any other way.

But, I also find that once most folks get used to playing a game a certain way, nothing else feels right to them.

For example, I first learned to play El Grande with expansions, and I love them. I love them so much, the base game seems dull and unexciting without them. I've tried playing it that way, but it just doesn't seem like as much fun. However, my main game group has never played with the expansions, or has tried them once and found them, unacceptable. Not sure what the reasons are, but, because of it, I haven't played El Grande in a Lot of years. I miss it. I need to break it out with my newest gamers -- what a good idea.

Anyway, my main problem is that I have trouble even getting rid of a game insert. A wonderful colorful scoring mechanism like this, however flawed, and I just have to make it work. My friends call it owner's prejudice.

-- rob derrick

Thread: Re: Overproduced fix to the scoring columns problem

Larry Levy — 2008-09-30T01:17:46+00:00

It's nice work, Rob, but you still can't read the scores unless you're...right...on...top of them. This is one game where you just have to keep score on paper and it doesn't really suffer as a result.

Thread: Overproduced fix to the scoring columns problem

robmderrick — 2008-09-29T23:32:56+00:00

[reproduced from a geeklist article]

The Capitol Scoring Columns were a clever idea that lacked a practical implementation. That is, there was no way to make this scoring device cost effective and practical at the same time.

But, it was a really clever idea. So, I designed a holder that allows you to use the Capitol scoring tracks in all their glory, but fixes it so it actually works!

The pictures should pretty much speak for themselves. I built a cardboard frame that the scoring bars go through, using the column base provided.

]]>

I then glued a block of bevelled wood to the back of the score base. The black strip on the base and the little strips on the columns are there to provide counterweights to keep the track from tipping backwards when the scores rise high enough to have otherwise counterbalanced the whole mechanism. The black strips are made from a roll of rubberized magnet material with an adhesive back.

]]>

The columns are held gently but not too firmly in the holder.

]]>

]]>

]]>

Yes, it is overdone, but it does work quite well, and it gives the Capitol game experience a little bit of extra 'zazz!

Thread: Re: I didn't get it at all...have we done something wrong?

BugLaden — 2008-08-08T13:08:02+00:00

And remember, you have to play a card to do ANYTHING in this game. You have to play a roof card to build a roof. Then its the next player's turn to play a card and do something.

But don't use all your cards in the construction phase! Save some cards for the auction in the improvement phase. You won't get new cards until the end of the round.

The rub of this game is the agonizing decisions when to use cards.

Thread: Re: I didn't get it at all...have we done something wrong?

Moviebuffs — 2008-08-08T11:12:20+00:00

Yes.

But you only do one of those things, then the next player does one, then the next, and then - when it comes back to you - you can do another one, etc...

N.

Thread: Re: I didn't get it at all...have we done something wrong?

xbjoernx — 2008-08-08T10:55:35+00:00

ah...that means in my turn i can, for example build two new blocks, than i place a building on the board, than i build a roof...as long as i have cards for the actions??...if its that way i think the german rules are written very stupid because its not mentioned at all...the rules in german say: you can do one thing, you have to decide...nothing more...

Thread: Re: I didn't get it at all...have we done something wrong?

BugLaden — 2008-08-08T10:54:00+00:00

A round consists of the following phases:

1. Construction Phase: Each player takes a turn and plays a card to do one of the actions you listed above. Players continue to take turns until everyone has passed.

2. Improvement Phase: 2 fountains are up for bid, then either an Amphitheater or a Temple. Each auction is a blind bid.

3. Scoring Phase: Each of the 9 neighborhoods are scored

4. Draw Phase: Each player draws 6 cards, more if you have the majority in an area with an amphitheater.

Do the above 4 phases for each of the 4 rounds.

Have fun!

Thread: Re: I didn't get it at all...have we done something wrong?

Moviebuffs — 2008-08-08T10:50:00+00:00

On your turn you can do exactly one of those things.

But you keep taking turns until you pass for that round.

Once everyone has passed, that's the end of one round.

N.

Thread: I didn't get it at all...have we done something wrong?

xbjoernx — 2008-08-08T10:43:55+00:00

yesterday we played capitol for the first time, with 3 players...the rule says that in the action phase you can do one of the following things:

draw 2 new building tiles and build new buildungs or stack up existing buildings
place a finished building on the board
place a roof on a building to finish it

so far so good...but in only 4 rounds???...that means each player only has four times the chance to do something???...huh??? for example: in the first round i place a building...on the second round a build a new building...in the third round i build a roof and in the last round i place a buildung...so i have two buildings on the board??????...huh thats by three players ahm 6 buildings in 4 rounds??...than the game is finished???...i don't get it...what did we wrong???
The Rules in German say exactly "you can do ONE of the following things"...help!

Thread: Re: Made in ....?

Guantanamo — 2008-07-09T16:34:40+00:00

on the siiidddeee. So, is that where they've been hiding it.

Thanks!!!!!!!!

Thread: Re: Made in ....?

DaveD — 2008-07-09T16:29:41+00:00

At least on my copy, it does say in english on the side of the box - Made in Germany

Thread: Made in ....?

Guantanamo — 2008-07-09T16:23:06+00:00

So, I'm one of those freaky people that likes to smell my games. I'm working on a geeklist to see if there is a correlation between county it's made in and smell.

I've search and search on the box and in the rulebook, but I can't find where this one was printed. Am I blind? Can anyone tell if where it was made is printed anywhere? Ok, it doesn't help that it's all in German but I don't think it says anywhere. I'd assume this was made in Germany.

Image

DaMarsh — 2008-06-06T02:30:35+00:00

Capitol buildings late in the game

Image

DaMarsh — 2008-06-06T02:29:08+00:00

Capitol's bizarre scoring tracks

Image

DaMarsh — 2008-06-06T02:28:03+00:00

A third of Capitol completed in the late afternoon sun

Image

DaMarsh — 2008-06-06T02:26:01+00:00

Late afternoon sun causes shadows in Capitol

Image

Toynan — 2008-04-13T15:14:27+00:00

Close up on a hiiiiight tower !

Image

Toynan — 2008-04-13T15:12:58+00:00

Image

Toynan — 2008-04-13T15:12:46+00:00

First player token

Image

Toynan — 2008-04-13T15:12:10+00:00

Inside of the box

Image

Toynan — 2008-04-13T15:11:49+00:00

Components inside of the box

Image

Toynan — 2008-04-13T15:01:02+00:00

Front of the box

Thread: Re: Capitol for sale on funagain

wwscrispin — 2008-03-22T10:42:06+00:00

Hmmm, makes me glad to have gotten it in the low twenties when retailers where trying to get rid of slow moving copies.

Thread: Capitol for sale on funagain

burrie — 2008-03-22T01:46:31+00:00

Funagain has a few copies of Capitol for sale. Price is $61.95.

http://www.funagain.com/redir/28022/Capitol

Thread: Re: Very different from El Grande but eually good in an area control kindof way

generalpf — 2008-03-03T14:56:31+00:00

I didn't like El Grande, and found Capitol less offensive, but by no stretch of the imagination would I ever consider Capitol to be even half as good as El Grande.

Thread: Re: Very different from El Grande but eually good in an area control kindof way

jayjonbeach — 2008-03-03T03:37:42+00:00

IronMoss wrote:
Every few games, there will be a round in which I really need a red permit and there just isn't one in the top couple of cards in the stack to draw. Bad luck - yes, but I probably shouldn't have put myself in that situation to begin with.

Ah yes, there it is, a complete lack of control in your on-board positioning due to a bad card draw, that was indeed my biggest complaint. This also means long term planning, while you can try, will be completely foiled by this very thing.

This is why the game is on my trade list. I'm taking offers...

Thread: Re: Very different from El Grande but eually good in an area control kindof way

denverarch — 2008-03-03T03:31:54+00:00

This is a quiet gem, we tend to have in someones box most every week, although it doesnt egt played quite enough. As a City Planner I'm usually requesting it, but others seem to enjoy it as well. The building up makes it unique and enjoyable. Good to see a review of this delightful game on here, and no suprise people start a dispute over something.

Thread: Re: Very different from El Grande but eually good in an area control kindof way

Drew1365 — 2008-03-03T03:27:28+00:00

jayjonbeach wrote:
Luck? The luck here is certainly kept at a minimum. You never draw cards blindly . . . the stacks are always face up.

Yes, apparently my tolerance is much lower than yours. You have a blind auction for improvements, enough said there already... (I can tolerate some blind auction games but not when they are incorporated into what is supposed to be a strategy game). On another note related to this, the stop card bit is just silly here, another blunder like the scoreboard.

The stop card seemed odd the first time I played, but it prevents people from guessing what you're bidding based on the number of cards you're putting forward. It also prevents players from changing their bid based on what people bid before them. Now, you could just "house rule" it into open bidding going more than once around, I suppose.

I think my biggest problem going from memory was actually the district cards. Although an attempt was made to reduce luck by having card decks face up it was not enough to save the game. The district cards are really important as they limit your placments, if you don't get the right ones at the right times your whole game can be foiled (as you can maybe tell it happened to me). You can't just pull districts either because you also need Floor and Roof cards to build and you can only pull 6 cards.

It's been awhile since I played, but I seem to recall that it's just something to factor in. If you need a certain district for your next turn, you might just start by drawing districts to make sure you get the district you want before moving on to taking roofs and floors. I've certainly made the mistake of grabbing roofs and floors first, which was a stupid mistake.

Its an 'okay' game with nothing that really stands out except it's faults, there are just so many better majority games that this one never gets suggested by anyone I know.

And this review made me think that I needed to play it again.

Thread: Re: Very different from El Grande but eually good in an area control kindof way

jayjonbeach — 2008-03-03T03:18:00+00:00

Drew1365 wrote:
It's always been hard to find in the English-speaking parts of the world as it was never released in an English edition.

I find this game compares well to something like Kardinal & Konig (Web of Power)/China. It has a lot of that same feel to me, but with an auction mechanic added.

jayjonbeach wrote:
Capitol is no where near as good as El Grande simply because like most of Moon's games there is too much luck, this is no exception.

Luck? The luck here is certainly kept at a minimum. You never draw cards blindly . . . the stacks are always face up.

Yes, apparently my tolerance is much lower than yours. You have a blind auction for improvements, enough said there already... (I can tolerate some blind auction games but not when they are incorporated into what is supposed to be a strategy game). On another note related to this, the stop card bit is just silly here, another blunder like the scoreboard.

I think my biggest problem going from memory was actually the district cards. Although an attempt was made to reduce luck by having card decks face up it was not enough to save the game. The district cards are really important as they limit your placments, if you don't get the right ones at the right times your whole game can be foiled (as you can maybe tell it happened to me). You can't just pull districts either because you also need Floor and Roof cards to build and you can only pull 6 cards.

Its an 'okay' game with nothing that really stands out except it's faults, there are just so many better majority games that this one never gets suggested by anyone I know.

Thread: Re: Very different from El Grande but eually good in an area control kindof way

IronMoss — 2008-03-03T03:06:56+00:00

I agree strongly with Drew - the luck factor in this game in minimal. Every few games, there will be a round in which I really need a red permit and there just isn't one in the top couple of cards in the stack to draw. Bad luck - yes, but I probably shouldn't have put myself in that situation to begin with.

One other key difference between Capitol and other area control games . . . often, in area control games (e.g., El Grande, San Marco), there's a good reward for "being second" in a lot of places rather than "being first" in only a few. That conventional wisdom is not necessarily true in Capitol, as second place only scores point if there are fountains in your city region. So, sometimes you can ride a minority position to a few points, but often it can be effort/cards wasted for no return. It's an aspect of playing the game that I like.

Thread: Re: Very different from El Grande but eually good in an area control kindof way

Drew1365 — 2008-03-03T02:32:59+00:00

It's always been hard to find in the English-speaking parts of the world as it was never released in an English edition.

I find this game compares well to something like Kardinal & Konig (Web of Power)/China. It has a lot of that same feel to me, but with an auction mechanic added.

jayjonbeach wrote:
Capitol is no where near as good as El Grande simply because like most of Moon's games there is too much luck, this is no exception.

Luck? The luck here is certainly kept at a minimum. You never draw cards blindly . . . the stacks are always face up.

Thread: Re: Very different from El Grande but eually good in an area control kindof way

jayjonbeach — 2008-03-03T01:47:59+00:00

meowsqueak wrote:
That scoring device is regarded as one of the most loathsome, fiddly and unnecessary boardgame devices ever.

You forgot the absolute best adjective to describe it, "broken". It truly does not work properly.

Capitol is no where near as good as El Grande simply because like most of Moon's games there is too much luck, this is no exception.

Thread: Re: Very different from El Grande but eually good in an area control kindof way

meowsqueak — 2008-03-03T01:37:19+00:00

That scoring device is regarded as one of the most loathsome, fiddly and unnecessary boardgame devices ever.

Thread: Very different from El Grande but equally good in an area control kindof way

citylife — 2008-03-03T00:15:23+00:00

One feature of typical area control games that I don’t like is the ability to remove opponents control tokens. It is one thing for a fellow gamer to come over the top with a bunch of extra tokens, cubes, or meeples. It is entirely another thing to take away your, and only your, tokens. And so I am pleased to report that Capitol is an area control game that requires you to go over the top, and does not allow your opponent to pull the rug from under your feet. Somehow I really like that.

Capitol is aging a little now and can be hard to find which is why my dedicated games master was forced to buy the Italian edition with English rules printed out on the side. Credit must go to anyone for pursuing a game so wholeheartedly that they buy it in a language that they don’t speak, and I’m glad he did. Someone passed the comment that it was sitting in an Italian warehouse somewhere, so congradz Zirak for liberating this game.

This game is an area control and hand management game. That makes me think El Grande, but the dynamics are very different. There are 9 districts to compete for each of which scores 4 times, but you can only ever have 10 buildings (stacks of control) and once a building has a roof placed on it you cannot increase its height (and hence influence).

Each turn a player may play any of the cards in his hand. One type of card allows you to add bricks to unroofed buildings. Bricks are the units of control. One type allows you to place a roof on a building (there are two roof types for which each player has five of each), and the final type allows you to place on one of the three colours of regions. Placing a building in a region requires it to be the same, or one level higher than the existing highest building and only building with the same type of roof can be placed. Therefore to place a building in a highly contested area the building must be the right height with the right roof type and you must have the right card to do it. The value of the area is also determined by items auctioned at the end of the round using cards as currency.

So you can see that there is nothing clear cut about the fighting. And this is where the game is intriguing, because there is the opportunity to build in such a way that your opponent cannot fight you for an area. In El Grande two players may fight indefinitely and repetitively over an area. This game becomes more about cunning than bravado and nerves. This is something I like.

Overall the presentation is good and the author has gone to great lengths with the scoring device. It involves a ruler like you might have used at school for each player and sliding it up to indicate your score. Never have I seen such an elaborate mechanic for such a simple task.

Capitol offers some very different from something seemingly so similar. At first glance you may think ‘boring’, but at a second glance, and a third and a fourth there is something fresh and enticing. Give it a try.

Thread: Re: User Review

dcorban — 2007-08-21T05:10:32+00:00

TomVasel wrote:
As long as players don’t get caught up in a blood feud (I’ve seen buildings that were ten stories high - ridiculous for this game), the results of games are fairly close.
It is not possible for there to be buildings ten floors high. The largest areas have seven spaces. This means the tallest building possible is seven floors, since each new building can be a maximum of one floor higher than the current highest.

Thread: Re: Missing roof cards?

Innovan — 2007-06-10T23:37:05+00:00

Thank you!

Thread: Re: Missing roof cards?

BugLaden — 2007-06-10T22:20:14+00:00

Your cards are complete. The roof cards only go up to 7.

Thread: Missing roof cards?

Innovan — 2007-06-10T19:43:05+00:00

My deck has two of each roof card, numbers 1 through 7.

Is this expected, or am I missing 2 value 8 roof cards?

I notice in Alan Moon's component list there are only 14 roof cards,
but it does seem strange since both the 24 block cards run 1-8 as do the 24 permit cards.

Thread: Re: Play-by-web Capitol Now Playing at Ludoholic

marioaguila — 2007-04-08T15:24:23+00:00

Great implementation...many thanks

Thread: Re: Korean edition suitability?

alanrmoon — 2007-03-24T21:50:12+00:00

itiswon wrote:
Hi, Mr. Moon.
It is very nice to meet you !

The picture that I uploaded is not Korean edition.
Actually, there is no Korean edition, indeed.
The picture of rule book of Capitol is translated from original manual.
Maybe, one of your Korean fan translated it to Korean.
I was also very impressed by his effort to enjoy your game so much.
That's why I took picture and uploaded it.
The Korean rule book is his homemade version.

There are lots of your fans in this country.
Though, as you know, there are only few Korean rule books availble.
Because of fans' effort, lots of Koreans enjoy your games very much now.
If you have any more comment about the person who made the homemade translated Korean rule book, just let me know. =)

Only few Koreans can speak English.
Most of Koreans educated only for reading English, not for speaking, listening, and writing things.
That's why lots of Koreans are registered in BGG, but they are not so active.
I am the one of people who can communicate in English, so I want to be a connecting bridge to make Koreans come close to the outside of the World.

Sincerely.

Thanks for the explanation Itiswon.

Alan

Thread: Re: Korean edition suitability?

itiswon — 2007-03-21T01:44:26+00:00

Hi, Mr. Moon.
It is very nice to meet you !

The picture that I uploaded is not Korean edition.
Actually, there is no Korean edition, indeed.
The picture of rule book of Capitol is translated from original manual.
Maybe, one of your Korean fan translated it to Korean.
I was also very impressed by his effort to enjoy your game so much.
That's why I took picture and uploaded it.
The Korean rule book is his homemade version.

There are lots of your fans in this country.
Though, as you know, there are only few Korean rule books availble.
Because of fans' effort, lots of Koreans enjoy your games very much now.
If you have any more comment about the person who made the homemade translated Korean rule book, just let me know. =)

Only few Koreans can speak English.
Most of Koreans educated only for reading English, not for speaking, listening, and writing things.
That's why lots of Koreans are registered in BGG, but they are not so active.
I am the one of people who can communicate in English, so I want to be a connecting bridge to make Koreans come close to the outside of the World.

Sincerely.

Thread: Re: Korean edition suitability?

alanrmoon — 2007-03-16T12:01:52+00:00

Hi Innovan,

I have no knowledge of a Korean version of CAPITOL. The rights to the game reverted back to Aaron Weissblum and myself after Schmidt took the game out of their line and at present, no company has the right to publish the board game. Can you point me to the publisher's site and/or to sites where the game is for sale? Thank-you.

Alan R. Moon

Thread: Re: Korean edition suitability?

locusshifter — 2007-03-14T17:24:54+00:00

Given that the game is totally language independant you should have no issues buying a Korean copy and enjoying the heck out of it. Mine's german and all I needed was a translation...and the translation is by Moon himself (found right here on BGG)

Thread: Korean edition suitability?

Innovan — 2007-03-14T16:26:18+00:00

So Capitol is now being published in Korea?

How different are the components? Is it reasonable to buy the Korean edition and play with english rules from the web?

Thread: Play-by-web Capitol Now Playing at Ludoholic

BugLaden — 2007-03-11T14:01:55+00:00

The play-by-web implementation of Capitol is out of beta and Now Playing at Ludoholic.

A Flash tutorial to help you get started can be found here:
http://www.ludoholic.com/games/capitol/capitol.tutorial.html

Ludoholic
http://www.ludoholic.com

Thread: Re: Scoring

fs1973 — 2007-02-17T16:53:08+00:00

Thanks Nick.

I also supposed that by looking at the score chart. But i wasn't sure.
Thanks again.

Luis

Thread: Re: Scoring

Moviebuffs — 2007-02-16T23:28:41+00:00

As far as I am aware ....

In first place, you receive 2 points, plus 1 for each fountain.

In second place, you receive 1 for each fountain.

In both cases, you only get 2+f or f, however many houses you have in the area, as long as you're in first or second place.

So .. the answer to your question is total

N.

Thread: Scoring

fs1973 — 2007-02-16T20:45:41+00:00

Hi,

I didn't get this one.

Do i receive 1 (second place) or 2 (first place) points for each block i have or do i only receive 1 or 2 points total, depending if i was first or second.

Thnks,
Luis

Thread: Re: PBW implementation in beta at Ludoholic

Drew1365 — 2007-01-28T20:01:01+00:00

It's a good version, but does not work with Safari, so be warned.

Thread: Capitol: my view

RobM — 2006-10-16T20:32:08+00:00

Capitol: my view.

Preamble.
I have only played one building game, Manhattan. Therefore when one member of our gaming group bought along Capitol, I was keen to give it a try.

Components.
I really like the look of Capitol. It comes with a really nice board depicting Rome. The artwork is excellent and the board contains six city districts, two each in red, black and white. There is a large bag of wooden building floors and there then sets of roofs (both rounded and triangular) in each of four colours (green, red, blue, yellow). Each player has one ‘stop’ card featuring a senator. There are also stacks of cards to represent roofs, floors and permits. There are cardboard counters to represent fountains, amphitheatres and temples. Finally, there is the much talked about scoring track which comprises four columns that fit under a cardboard slider. We played without even gluing the basic scorer together and it was ok. We all agreed that it was fiddly and unnecessary but also agreed that gluing a simple piece of cardboard across the back would make it perfectly usable. I guess it would have been easier to have had a score track around the outside of the board, but at the same time, I applaud the game designers for at least trying to do something different, even if it didn’t quite come off.

Being English, we used the translation of the rules that came with the game…. these were adequate but there were several ambiguities and incorrect translations (including the colours!). Fortunately, the German rulebook is well illustrated and it was possible to cross check the two and work out how to play. Excellent one page summaries can also be downloaded from BGG.

Overall, the components are very good indeed. The wooden buildings and coloured roofs are excellent. Once there are several buildings on the board, it really looks like an ancient city.

Gameplay.
Gameplay is fairly straightforward. Each player is dealt 2 roof cards, 2 floor cards and 4 permit cards. The remainder of these stacks are placed face up next to the board. Each player then takes the roofs of a particular colour and 6 floors. These are used to build a one storey and a two storey building with each roof type. Players build these four buildings (and subsequent ones) off the board. Next, the fountains, amphitheatres and temples are placed in the appropriate spaces down the right hand side of the board. Set up is completed by choosing a starting player and giving him/her the starting token.

The game consists of 4 rounds, each comprising the following phases:

Construction: Beginning with the starting player, each player performs one of the following actions:
- Play a floor card and take 2 floors, using them to build new buildings or increase the height of buildings under construction (those without roofs).
- Play a roof card and place 1 roof atop one of his/her uncompleted buildings.
- Play a permit card and place 1 building in a city area with a matching colour. There are several rules governing placement of buildings: (1) They can only be placed in an unoccupied small space; (2) They must have the same roof style as existing buildings in that city area; (3) All three city areas of the same colour must not have the same roof type; (4) The first building built in an area may only be 1 storey high, and subsequent buildings in an area must be the same height as existing buildings there, or 1 storey higher.
- Pass.

This phase continues until all players have passed. Numbers on the cards are ignored.

Improvement Auction: This phase uses ONLY the numbers on the cards. Each player stacks his/her cards face down with the cards he/she wishes to bid at the top and the stop card immediately below (other cards are placed under the stop card). Players then simultaneously flip over their cards to see who wins each auction. Only the player who wins the auction actually spends the cards bid. In the case of ties, auctions are broken in favour of the player who played the single highest denomination card. There are 3 auctions each round. The first and second auctions in each round are for fountains. The third auctions in rounds 1 and 2 are for amphitheatres. The third auctions in rounds 3 and 4 are for temples. Fountains are placed in any empty small space and give bonus points during scoring. Amphitheatres are placed in any empty large space and give bonus cards during the end phase. Temples are also placed in any empty large space and allow double scoring during the scoring phase. Note that there is only one large space per city area.

Scoring: Each of the 9 city areas is scored. The player with the tallest building in an area scores 2 points plus 1 point per temple in the area. The player with the second tallest building scores 1 point plus 1 point per temple in the area. Temples double the points that players receive for the area in which they are built. Players can be tied for first or second place, in which case they both receive the appropriate points.

The player with the most points at the end of 4 rounds is the winner.

End phase: Each player draws 6 cards from the face up piles. Each player with the tallest building in an area containing an amphitheatre draws 2 additional cards. A player with the second tallest building in an area with an amphitheatre draws 1 additional card.

So What Do I Think?
I have to say that I quite like Capitol, although others in our group are less enamoured by it. There are certainly lots of different choices each turn. Gaining the right colour permits is key in order to be able to play buildings where you want to. All of the various improvements are quite useful, and there are also certain city areas on the board that contain temples from the beginning. Turn order can be quite important. However, players who have either kept cards over from the previous turn or who have acquired lots of additional cards from amphitheatres, can essentially ensure they build last during the construction phase if they want to. Similarly, players with more cards may be able to ensure that they win a key auction, although the fact that the numbers on the cards vary so much (from 1 to 8) can mean that luck of the draw mitigates against this. The game can suffer a little if some of the players are not willing to build 1 storey buildings to open up new areas. A good way to avoid this is for everyone to build several 1 storey buildings in the first round. This tactic is both a good one for gaining early points, and for opening up the board quickly. Later in the game, it becomes a rather cagey balancing act, with everybody trying to build and then place taller buildings than everyone else. It can be frustrating if your card draw isn’t great. For instance, you might have to draw 3 permit cards before you get the colour you want (using up valuable draws that you might otherwise have used to gain roofs and floors).

Overall I give Capitol a very commendable 7. For me, it can only live up to this score if all players are willing to: (a) play some one storey buildings early on to open up the board; (b) play relatively quickly. Given those two provisos, the game can be finished in about an hour, which is excellent. Finally, getting back to where I started this review….. our group now has two building games in Capitol and Manhattan, so how do they compare? I like both but the rest of the group are not that keen on either! Capitol feels slightly more prone to luck but is significantly shorter. Both look good on the table, but in a totally different way: Manhattan has the feel of seventies day-glow plastic whereas Capitol has more reserved but elegant traditional wooden blocks. I rate them both equally because they offer slightly different but equally interesting building experiences. Both allow you to develop points in key areas of the board, and both also allow you to shaft other players as you do so. There are more options in Capitol but provided you don’t get analysis paralysis it plays quicker. Manhattan is more straightforward, but consequently feels rather slow and dry (particularly if played without the baby Godzilla variant). Choose either with confidence if you fancy a decent building game. Read reviews of both to work out which one might suit your group…..unfortunately neither seems to quite suit the rest of my group, so they don’t hit the table as often as I’d like.

Thread: PBW implementation in beta at Ludoholic

bigjobbies — 2006-09-24T05:45:31+00:00

Check out Ludoholic.com for an play-by-web implementation of Capitol that would make even Lucius Vorenus crack a smile !

DISCLAIMER- I am a PBW addict, not otherwise associated with Ludoholic

Terry

Thread: Re: 4 player Capitol, a comedy of errors

mjwills — 2006-08-28T21:35:24+00:00

Verkisto wrote:
mjwills wrote:
Malachi wrote:
In addition to not playing "correctly", in my opinion, we also actually missed a rule. We didn't actually start with any houses. That would have made a bit of a difference in the first two rounds.

It would have made a massive difference in the game. It would mean you would have had to use far more of your cards in the first round, making them unavailable for the first auction and all future rounds.

I would think that starting with the buildings would allow for us to use FEWER cards, since we didn't have to spend all of our cards to build and roof the buildings we created in the first round. I think we all had two cards (or fewer, in some cases) to use for the first auction because of that.

Agreed. That is the point I was making. My comment was in reference to the way you played it, not the correct rules.

Thread: Re: 4 player Capitol, a comedy of errors

Verkisto — 2006-08-28T16:38:02+00:00

mjwills wrote:
Malachi wrote:
In addition to not playing "correctly", in my opinion, we also actually missed a rule. We didn't actually start with any houses. That would have made a bit of a difference in the first two rounds.

It would have made a massive difference in the game. It would mean you would have had to use far more of your cards in the first round, making them unavailable for the first auction and all future rounds.

I would think that starting with the buildings would allow for us to use FEWER cards, since we didn't have to spend all of our cards to build and roof the buildings we created in the first round. I think we all had two cards (or fewer, in some cases) to use for the first auction because of that.

Thread: Re: 4 player Capitol, a comedy of errors

mjwills — 2006-08-27T08:08:21+00:00

Malachi wrote:
In addition to not playing "correctly", in my opinion, we also actually missed a rule. We didn't actually start with any houses. That would have made a bit of a difference in the first two rounds.

It would have made a massive difference in the game. It would mean you would have had to use far more of your cards in the first round, making them unavailable for the first auction and all future rounds.

I'd try it again with that rule corrected - it improves the game flow considerably.

Thread: Re: First Timers: A Cautionary Tale

Malachi — 2006-08-27T06:24:46+00:00

My take on events: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/1050893

Thread: 4 player Capitol, a comedy of errors

Malachi — 2006-08-27T01:35:27+00:00

Well, since this is just my perspective of the same game that Verkisto did a session report for, I guess I'm outing myself as "Flaco", although I'm preserving Verkisto's other obfuscations to protect the other players.
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/123538

Verkisto, Fabio, and I wanted to play something short (less than 1h) and Fabio wanted to try Capitol, so we got it out. None of us had played it before, so we struggled a bit with the rules. Before we had even finished the first round, Stan stopped by, so we explained the game to him and started over.

Turn order:
Verkisto - yellow
Stan - green
Fabio - red
malachi - blue

Round 1
We made a lot of mistakes. In the first round, it was my turn to drop the ball. Instead of building some reasonable configuration of blocks, I decided to build one stack of four blocks in the hopes that the other players would make the plays necessary for me to be able to use it to take over a region. Sadly, that never happened and my blind ambition prevented me from getting any points at all in the first round.

The other players made fairly reasonable moves, but the auction was a bit of a wash because the two fountains ended up in a tie and were removed from the game. Fabio won the auditorium and placed it in the region he had control of to gain the two card bonus.

Round 2
In the second round, it was Fabio's turn to make a big mistake. Much to our amusement, he apparently paid too much attention to the numeric values of the eight cards he drew, and he failed to draw any roofing cards, so he didn't actually do anything at all in the second round.

The rest of us started making our own blunders, though, because we all took a very confrontational (mutually assured destruction) approach and fought for the three existing regions instead of spreading out into new regions, so a lot of resources were squandered but very few additional points came into the game in the second round. In retrospect this was probably not the best way to play the game, although it probably did help salvage Fabio's position because much of the potential of the second round was wasted.

Fabio, with his fist full of cards, managed to win one fountain and place it out of harms way. I won the second auditorium and I ended up collecting three extra cards because I was second place in the region with the other one.

Round 3
This time, Fabio decided to pick up some roofing cards... It was also around this time that Verkisto and Stan had something clarified that sort of changed the game for them. They had misunderstood the placement rules and thought that a stack must be one greater than the tallest stack in the region. That probably had a significant impact on their first two rounds of strategic choices.

I decided that I had no chance of winning at this point, so I chose to go out in style. I basically dominated one region in a fight to the death with Verkisto. I knew that wasn't the best thing to do, but I had already messed things up enough that it did not make a great deal of difference.

This is was the round where we were finally starting to get it, and we started to move out into other regions, although probably not as much as we should have.

Fabio managed to snag the temple and add it to one of his regions for a significant advantage that was not shared with anyone.

Round 4
Now we were finally playing the way we probably should have been playing at the beginning. We all spread out into the remaining four unclaimed regions.

I had wanted to break into Fabio's temple region, but I wasn't lucky enough to get the right card to play there, and no one else was either.

In the last auction, Fabio won the second temple and placed it on another region where there was no second place player, meaning he had exclusive control of both temple regions.

Final scores:
Stan: 30
Fabio: 25
Verkisto: 21
malachi: 19

Analysis:
Despite Fabio's major early blunder, he managed to make a good showing, but Verkisto and I were unable to recover from our mutually destructive confrontation.

In addition to not playing "correctly", in my opinion, we also actually missed a rule. We didn't actually start with any houses. That would have made a bit of a difference in the first two rounds.

I have the same mixed feeling about this game that I have about many of Moon's games. There are many attributes that balance each other and cause each decision to be tense, but on some level it feels artificial and I believe that some of the layers may be unnecessary. Like there are too many contrived trade-offs.

Not to say that this is a bad game, it just doesn't suit my tastes. There are some aspects that are like playing chicken, and that can be fun, but it's too cluttered and fiddly for me. I'll probably play it again someday, but I won't request it.

Thread: Re: First Timers: A Cautionary Tale

rickkeuler — 2006-08-26T22:01:30+00:00

Verkisto wrote:
Now that I've read a couple of rules summaries, I should add:

Caution #6: Make sure you read the rules closely enough.

We didn't start the game with any completed buildings. We just started playing cards to construct them.

I take responsibility for #6 - someday I'll learn to not try to break out a new game until I've studied the rules and am ready to play it. I'm always so excited at the possibility of getting one game off of my "owned, but haven't played" list that I get blinded to all other considerations. Oh well - onward.

Anyone want to guess who I am in the above story?

Thread: Re: First Timers: A Cautionary Tale

Verkisto — 2006-08-26T18:06:23+00:00

Now that I've read a couple of rules summaries, I should add:

Caution #6: Make sure you read the rules closely enough.

We didn't start the game with any completed buildings. We just started playing cards to construct them.

Thread: First Timers: A Cautionary Tale

Verkisto — 2006-08-26T15:55:30+00:00

Yesterday, a few of us gathered at a friend's house ("Flaco" and myself at "Fabio"'s house), and once we all settled in with pizza and drinks, we decided to play Capitol. None of us had played before, so Fabio taught us the game, and we played through one round. After that, a fourth person arrived ("Stan"), so we reset the game, re-explained it, and restarted playing.

We each took certain gambles with certain buildings; since Flaco and Fabio followed me, and had already built two 2-high buildings, I opted to build a 1- and 3-high building, both with the same roofs. This forced Flaco to build a 4-high building with the same roof, but by the end of the first round, only the 1-high building had been placed to the board; Flaco and Fabio didn't seem interested in giving me the opportunity to place my 3-high building, and since I would have lost the principality to Flaco if I placed the 3-high building, I was fine with that.

Because the fountains seemed lucrative, we all placed into the three regions with permanent fountains inside. These regions became hotly-contested, as all placements were restricted in the first round to these three areas. By the time the auctions came around, most of us had only one or two cards, so one fountain was discarded due to a tie; the other one went to the board, and Fabio managed to win the auction for the amphitheater. Naturally, he placed it to the region where he had the lead, and took 8 cards at the end of the round as a bonus.

The second round began innocently enough. We began building more buildings, and placing into the same three areas where we had fought before. I was still waiting for someone to place a 2-high building into my first region, but because no one took the bait, I wound up roofing my 2-high stack with the same type of roof, and then watched as Flaco finally placed his own 2-high building. I griped that I now had a useless building in front of me, and both Flaco and Fabio said it was fine. I was convinced that all buildings placed to the board had to be at least 1 block higher than any previously placed building, and felt like I needed to wait for someone else to open a 1-high building of that type in another area before placing that 2-high building. I found out that this was not the case.

Caution #1: You may only increase the height of a building by one block at a time, but this does not restrict you from playing smaller buildings in the meantime.

After going around and taking actions one time in the second round, Fabio passed, much to the surprise of the rest of us. We asked why he was bowing out, and he slammed his cards down and said, "Because I forgot to draw any stupid roof cards at the end of the first round!" So, he was out of that round, and we managed to outscore him in his currently-won regions. He did manage to either match or win every auction that happened to come up, and he also had a nice stack of cards to compete in the third round. This turned out to be a respectable strategy in the long run, but it was a note of frustration for Fabio in the game.

Caution #2: When you get the extra card bonus in a region, don't forget to draw roof cards.

Near the end of the second round, Flaco commented that we probably weren't playing the game correctly. I asked him what he meant, and he said that we seemed to be focused on the three regions with permanent fountains, and battling to the end of our cards to claim them. Since the game is essentially an area control game, we were letting the "smaller" regions go empty, when we could have been claiming them for points. I explained that had I understood the placement-size relationship better in the first and second rounds, I would have played buildings to those regions. This, however, was a moot point; by round three, all of us started playing into the empty regions, and other power struggles ensued in different places around the board.

Caution #3: Don't focus too much on just a few regions (pictures may follow).

At the end of the third and fourth rounds, I was reminded that Alan Moon has a distinct talent for offering players several different choices on a turn, but only allowing players a limited number of actions each time. I was vying for certain areas with specific buildings, but I only had enough cards to build and place the buildings I had. By the time the auctions rolled around, I didn't have enough cards left over to compete in the auctions. In fact, by the end of the fourth auction, the only card I had left in my hand was my stop card.

Caution #4: Don't spend all your cards unless you have such a huge lead that there's no way that anyone winning the auctions will be able to stop you.

By the end of the game, the person who skipped an entire round thanks to his lack of roof cards came in second place; the person who focused too strongly in one region came in last place; and the person who didn't have enough cards to compete in the auctions came in third place. The person who won arrived late, and complained for the entire first hand that he had no idea what he was doing. Ignorance pays off once again, after a long (long) battle.

Caution #5: The box says this plays in "ca. 60 mins"; after the game was over, we wondered if "ca." meant something like, "multiply the number that follows by two."

Fabio: 25
Flaco: 19
Stan: 30
Me: 21

Thread: Re: Deck of discards and new drafting method variants

Larry Levy — 2006-07-11T04:04:29+00:00

I asked Alan soon after Capitol was released why he and Aaron put in the rule that the discard pile is turned over instead of being shuffled. He said they just wanted to save some time. Since we've occasionally seen where the non-shuffled order can affect the game, we take the extra few minutes to shuffle the cards.