What do folks like to see as a beginning neutral count in games?  I can see why we would want them in 2, 3, and even 4-player games.  But at some point they become unnecessary.  Further complicating the issue is the designer option to populate the board with a low, medium, or high assortment of neutrals.  I can't remember what the percentages are for those settings, but I'm pretty sure they're hidden somewhere in the forums.

So for instance, with a board like WGWF.  What do you prefer?  Assuming there's no need for neutrals when there are many players, what do you think is a reasonable cut-off?  5+ players?

See if this works =

<iframe src="https://docs.zoho.com/embed/mr778511549012e0f457ca2f416dae97ef9b6" scrolling="no" width="800" height="520" frameborder="0"></iframe>

That's a spreadsheet I created long ago to calculate the what happens with the various neutral settings. 

They do add a degree of randomness to a board - which can be useful if it is too deterministic - which is one reason to include them in low-player games. - which is what I think you were referring to.

The cut-off I think is that in general I don't think a player should start with enough territories to warrant a territory bonus.  So neutrals cut down the # of starting territories.

I especially like boards where the neutrals are used to wall off areas to create stages to the game.  (e.g. Bloom and Fall of Rome.)

Amidon37 wrote:

 

I especially like boards where the neutrals are used to wall off areas to create stages to the game.  (e.g. Bloom and Fall of Rome.)

The exception for me is boards where you have to overcome too much neutral wall before you see any action. E.g., where poor dice can sink you before a battle has been fought.

M57 wrote:

Amidon37 wrote:

I especially like boards where the neutrals are used to wall off areas to create stages to the game.  (e.g. Bloom and Fall of Rome.)

The exception for me is boards where you have to overcome too much neutral wall before you see any action. E.g., where poor dice can sink you before a battle has been fought.

No, I don't like those either - and I was not including those in what I was saying.  The examples I gave at least give you attacking other players before attacking neutrals.  

This is the flow of game that I like -

Stage 1 - fight other players for a small part of the board

Stage 2 - break through neturals

Stage 3 - Fight for the whole board

I pretty much agree you want to start with numbers that support the minimum starting in-hand bonuses. My first question is more directed at whether or not neutrals are needed at all.  For instance, do they make any sense at all in a WGWF game with 6 players.

I've found in Fall of Rome that I've never been able to get anything going. In 10 games I don't think I've even had a continent bonus. My rating on that map must be 700. I want to love the map, but I always get impatient and stupid against the neutrals.