From:  (David Bofinger)
Subject: Re: Junta: house rules
Followup-To: rec.games.board
Organization: Theoretical Physics, Australian National University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 03:20:07 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.002509.1213@ll.mit.edu>, shoham@ll.mit.edu (Daniel
Shoham) wrote:
> In article <1992Sep30.165337.27213@HQ.Ileaf.COM> bret@HQ.Ileaf.COM (Bret Pettichord) writes:

> >2. Budget. The president proposes the budget by laying down the eight
> >   bills he's drawn face down in front of the players as he
> >   determines. This is the proposal that players must vote for; they
> >   only know the number of bills to be distributed. This is how i was
> >   taught to play years ago and how i've always played. I've always
> >   thought this was a slick idea.

I've always felt the President was a little too powerful in Junta -- in my
experience most coups are failures, for instance, and it's very easy for
a President and Police minister clique to dominate the Presidency for long
periods. One way to make the game more unstable would be by splitting the
Prseident's role into a President (assigns cabinet positions, shoots
rebels,
etc.) and a Treasurer (who passes out the money in the fashion you describe
above, and perhaps controls the bank guards or something).

> >3. Each player gets only one position/office. With four players, one
> >   of the armies is considered permanently in the provinces and the
> >   navy and airforce aren't used. The president determines seating
> >   order, and consequently the order of play.

Or attach several unpopular offices together and treat them as one.

> >4. No president's brother-in-law. Vacant positions are frozen.

The PBIL is another reason the President is very tough to beat. I'd agree
with this rule change.

> >6. Self-defense. Units may fire in self-defense during the initial
> >   coup phase without thereby committing acts of rebellion.

Yes, I think a lot of people play it this way anyway.

> >11. There is no limit to the number of volleys.

I think letting the defence try to "hang on" is a nice feature. How about,
the defender can declare the fight over any time they like after a certain
number of volleys.

> >12. You normally can kill a unit by rolling either a 5 or a 6 (not
> >   just a six).
> >13. Fortifications. The palace, barracks, and police are considered
> >   fortified positions. Defenders of such positions are only killed
> >   with a 6. The palace guards only get one die each when they fire.

> This rule becomes unneeded if we apply rule #11.

I presume you mean rule 12 here, the effect of rule 13 is actually quite
different to that of rule 11.

> It also makes the Navy and
> A/F VERY POWERFULL (they are supposed to be the $%^&ed offices. We defenitely
> don't want to equalize offices).

Depends whether the air force and navy need to roll 5s or 6s, and what
effect fortifications have on them. I'd suggest having them kill on 5-6
(6 versus forts) and reduce their dice. Incidentally, the navy is certainly
a useless office but the air force isn't clearly outclasssed.

> It also reduces the presidential guard's power.

Not really. They are still doubled (in defence now, instead of attack), and
they have the only building anyone is likely to want to attack, so it
doesn't
help anyone else much.

> >14. Police Responce. The police may respond to any red units, not just
> >   those placed by rebel players. The minister may even play the card
> >   himself. 

Seems reasonable.

Now why aren't there any communist guerilla uprisings in this game? (Divert
armies to the provinces, increase US aid, randomly assassinate people,
allow
the President to shoot anyone with a "socialist" influence card, give units
to appropriate rebels in coups...)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Bofinger  AARNet: dxb105@phys.anu.edu.au
                Snail:  Dept. of Theoretical Physics, RSPhysSE, ANU, ACT,
2601
------------------------------------------------------------------------------