How about adding a minimum units in a territory feature, so you have to leave more than one behind in some territories?

That's a cool idea. I support it.

I also support this idea.

How does it work if that territory is attacked and it goes below the minimum? Is the player forced to place new units there before anywhere else?

Great question

What do you think EN? Should probably be a configurable option I guess.

I think Norseman's interpretation would work. Otherwise it could be construed as a 'surrender threshold', meaning that once it drops below the minimum unit count during an attack, the territory surrenders to the attacker, and any remaining troops are captured by that attacker and become his.

Norseman wrote: How does it work if that territory is attacked and it goes below the minimum? Is the player forced to place new units there before anywhere else?

I would say that the player can't attack from that spot until filling it back above the minimum, but is permitted to leave it as is. 

Imagine owning a position with a minimum of 10, and wanting to abandon it, but your opponent keeps knocking it down to 1 unit at every chance.  How frustrating to be forced to keep reloading it first thing every turn when you don't even want it!

Kjeld's interpretation might be interesting, though.

An alternative would be that you are allowed to leave it, but then it reverts to nuetral. In other words, abandon on, I guess.

Kjeld wrote: meaning that once it drops below the minimum unit count during an attack, the territory surrenders to the attacker, and any remaining troops are captured by that attacker and become his.

I can see alot of maps where this can be applied. i like this suggestion.

I like an option between Unit capture and neutral. This simulates 2 real life instances of deserters becoming neutral and converts changing sides.

KrocK wrote:

Kjeld wrote: meaning that once it drops below the minimum unit count during an attack, the territory surrenders to the attacker, and any remaining troops are captured by that attacker and become his.

I can see alot of maps where this can be applied. i like this suggestion.

I don't see much difference between this and not having a minimum unit count at all.

Example 1: Territory A has 15 units and a minimum unit count of 11.  Another player destroys 5 units in Territory A and captures it, transferring 3 units in.  Territory A now has 13 units, but only 2 are available to attack.

Example 2: Territory B has 5 units and a minimum unit count of 1 (default).  Another player destroys 5 units in Territory B and captures it, transferring 3 units in.  Territory A now has 3 units, but only 2 are available to attack.

The only minor difference I see is that for minimum unit counts of 2 or greater, the territory will always defend with 2 units and as a result possibly dip 2 units below the minimum unit count.  Other than that, the extra minimum units are just extra baggage that go with the territory.

One thing that would change that would be to allow abandoning of territories.  That way, a player could do something like raze a city: attack until it drops below its minimum unit count, capture the territory, and then attack another territory and transfer all units out of it.  The territory would then be empty and could not be captured unless the attacker had enough units available to transfer to meet the minimum unit count requirements.

what i was thinking was the ability to set a min on a per county basis.
eg. having abandon on but having certian countries with a min troop so you couldn't abandon them. they will defend with the troops remaining not auto surrender.

I was thinking for specific territories as well. It also eliminates the 3v1 charge you can often make. I have a board where the defense is set to 5v5 all over the board to give the defense better chances than 6v6, but it only works if 2 units are left behind for defense. If the minimum were 2 units, then there's no 1v1 dice... I see your point in excess of 2 (Norseman), but as KrocK stated, there are abandon options. Also, if you had the option of return to neutral or player captures armies, then if you returned to neutral, you could simulate a wall. "No player may control this territory if it contains fewer than 5 units," so you have to break down the opponents all, and you only take it back over if you had the minimum number of units to move in.

This is something else entirely, but if you could set timers for continents and territories (either increased/decreased bonus over time, (Like cards, where you can set the parameters(speaking of which can you set negative cards?)), manipulated modifiers (where the wall gets stronger the longer you hold it) etc.)and you had carnivorous territories (where you lose units (physically, not in bonus) for controlling a territory or continent) plus minimums where territories below the minimum revert to neutral... you could have a board begin where nobody can be eliminated (due to a territory, which is set aside and unreachable) until a certain time, where the territory turns neutral, and lets the elimination begin. Obviously this is just one of the many uses that could come from all of these things. I recognize that it is a lot, but continent modification could open this site up to wonderful things.

speaking of carnivorous territories, there should also be bonus terratories where there you set it to spawn X number of troops on that terretory if you controle it on your turn.

I like that a bunch. Specific location of bonus distribution, positive or negative.

Could there also be an option to disable repeated attack, unless they transfer all (allow hot key T, but not A)? I like this in an abandon game with limited attacks where you want to encourage the movement, not spreading.

No offense to EN or the other people here, but I wouldn't mind seeing a lot of these put off indefinitely. I'm sure this doesn't sound good, but a lot of these are just things I personally wouldn't support. I feel pretty comfortable around Warfish and WarGear and the gameplay and the options and even things considered "advanced", but a lot of these either seem too complicated or just above my head. I'm sure I would get used to them and looking at the Rules for every game to see what the settings are, but already there is quite a bit to remember and try to understand, I'm not sure having completely everything at disposal is the best solution for Map Designers. I'm all for options, but don't make it a thousand options to set a game (even if they are optionable).

Like I said, it probably sounds bad, and feel free to ignore me, but just thought I'd throw my opinion out there that a lot of these options just seem overly complicated.

I can definately see Yertle's point, a lot of players don't read descriptions, which is unfortunate.

Minimum troop counts - I can see a lot of people reporting the map to be broken etc., leaving scathing reviews and creating a bit of headache.

That said, I can also see it being a useful tool for controlling the spread of players, you need x armies in A to be able to move on to B. But then, you can spread the control by instituting neutral armies anyways.

Carnivorous territories is interesting, but you could achieve the same effect by allowing map-makers to enable a setting that allows your minimum unit bonus to be set below zero, forcing you to remove units from the board(if the interface can handle that).

I think we need to keep the balance between feature-rich, and feature-burdened.

Personally, I love many ENygma maps and if there is a specific feature he wants to implement on a board that will make the board much more awesome, I'm going to be all for it.