From: bret@HQ.Ileaf.COM (Bret Pettichord)
Subject: Re: Junta: house rules
In-reply-to: shoham@ll.mit.edu's message of 1 Oct 92 00:25:09 GMT
Organization: Interleaf, Inc.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 92 16:12:20 GMT

In responce to my article, Daniel Shoham writes, in part:

   >Political Rules
   >
   >1. Pocket Money. One's personal bank account is attached to one's
   >   office. This has several effects. (1) You can't gain wealth
   >   directly through assasination and execution. (2) One can't
   >   automatically take one's personal wealth into exile. (3) A change
   >   of government could cause personal wealth to be reshuffled. 

   This will change the game so much it would no longer be Junta. I would vote
   against. Getting rich through assasination is SO MUCH FUN.

This is a really big change. I wish i remember what prompted this rule
change in the first place. Note that assasination can still be a way
of acquiring wealth, although it's not as direct and requires the
cooperation of groups of players. (Pres: if you assasinate him, i'll
assign his position to you).

   >Military Rules
   >
   >5. Winning. If the rebels hold three red areas at the end of any turn
   >   (not just the last), they have won the coup.

   No. This would be too easy. One could say that holding four is an
   instant win. 

Or maybe if they hold them for two turns in a row. I really want to
make it so that the coup game can finish sooner and encourage a quick
coup. Isn't this the meaning of "coup d'estat"? -- a quick chop to the
head. I haven't played with this rule and will need to see how it
looks. Some thoughts: (1) This gives an advantage to the air force,
who may now parachute into an unguarded location and get the third
area. (2) Advantage also goes to the minister, who is closer than the
rest. 

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

   I understood this to be part of the rules (maybe we have a
   differant version) 

My rules state in section 30: "A player must not fire back when his
counters are fired upon during the rebel phase if he wishes to remain
loyal. (Now that's loyalty beyond price.)"

   >7. Order of Play. Each player moves and then resolves combat, in turn.
   >   Allied players may move and fight together.
   >8. Transfer of Control. Military units may not move in the turn in
   >   which their control is transferred between players.

   Why?

I find it really confusing having everyone move and then keep track of
the ensuing fighting round. Instead, i'm using an order of play that
is more similar to Risk or Brittania. (I think the Brittania combat
system is enviably smoother than Junta's.) Also, i've made it so that
the first rebel player gets to move first in each coup phase. This
makes the pace easier to follow, but also gives an advantage to the
rebels, who now have the advantage of tempo (this will have to be
compensated for elsewhere).

The transfer rule is motivated by (1) preventing units from being
transferred back and forth willy nilly, which slows down the game and
didn't seem "realistic" to me and (2) making it easier to enforce the
rule that a unit can't move twice in one round.

   >9. First Fire. Defending unit always gets a free volley (without
   >   responce). After that, volleys are exchanged. There is no need to
   >   turn over counters to indicate who gets first fire.

   How is this differant from standard rules?

The standard rules say that the defender gets a first fire, then the
attacker gets to fire, then fire is considered simultaneous.

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

   ok.

   >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. 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). It also reduces the presidential guard's
   power. I would vote strongly against this rule.

Good point. Perhaps bombardment should always need a six to kill,
fortification or no. This should maintain the inequality. (I don't
expect to over 5 players for a while, so i haven't thought much about
these implications.)

I don't think it will reduce the president's guard's power. They still
basically get a 2-1 advantage when defending the palace. Indeed, if
there are other defenders there, their advantage is even greater.
Typically, of all the now-fortified positions, the palace is the only
place where pitched battles are fought. This also may give an
advantage to the minister, since it will now be harder for his units
to be picked off individually.

All in all, i think my rules will make it easier to have a successful
coup, or, in effect, they force the president to divide the spoils
more broadly to prevent such a coup (assuming that people start coups
for profit and not just for fun). Perhaps some offsetting advantage
should be given to the president. Maybe bring back the pres' brother
in law. Or can the fortifications rule, but allow the guards to get
two dice (or whatever) anywhere.

Thanks, Dan for your comments.

Bret Pettichord
bret@ileaf.com


Newsgroups: rec.games.board