Re: Rail S America [21.11.13] BETA READY

[koontz1973]

cairns, been looking at this now for a couple of days as I wanted to make sure.

I can see two real problems at the moment.

You have a huge amount of very small bonuses. Nicely spread but this map is going to come down to a lot of luck on the drop and who can grab one the first. In a two player game, if I drop 2 stations in a 3 line station, all I need is to take one neutral for a +2 bonus. This is not going to be fun for what I reckon will be the majority of games.

You have 2 solutions for this one. You have two lots of hats on the map. 2 and 3 line stations. Remove all of the hats from 2 line stations and reduce the 3 line station to a one bonus. This will only give you 3 3 hat bonuses and seems a bit fairer. The second solution to this and probably a much fairer one would be to have a collection bonus system in place. If you said that to get the hat bonuses, you needed 3 hats, you not only get rid of the problem entirely, but you will then be able to remove a lot of the neutrals and get back to your preferred golden number.

Q line. This is another 3 line station on a map dominated by small bonuses. It seems pointless to me to have it there as it does not seem to serve any function.

Again, 2 solutions for you. Remove the line completely. Easy, and clean fix. Second one would be to make the line longer. Run it down to SSA or SMS.

Thoughts?

[cairnswk]

koontz, after your post i too have been thinking.



Here is a breakdown of territories and bonuses ( no hat bonuses)

There are 5 continents (marked blue) that require less than 3 for bonuses. These are well spread out.

There are 9 bonuses (marked red) that are 1 & 2 bonuses, and 5 of these are the less than 3 territory continents as above.

I do think that for a map this size (114 terts) that is not a lot of bonuses with 2/3 territorie, considering 8 players may start, even though the majority of games may be 1v1.

I am not convinced that Q line is out or place and pointless and needs enhancing/removal because it was put there (V9) to balance that side of the map when ian wanted to place a similar small bonus down around SAO which i thought was overkill for that area. If you look at this you'll see that it does balance the map for small continent bonuses.

You have a huge amount of very small bonuses. Nicely spread but this map is going to come down to a lot of luck on the drop and who can grab one the first. In a two player game, if I drop 2 stations in a 3 line station, all I need is to take one neutral for a +2 bonus. This is not going to be fun for what I reckon will be the majority of games.

it may not be fun for you...but it might be fun for others who relish the opportunity to gain a small bonus early in the game to assist them on their quest to conquer large continents and their opponents, and this map help in particular those who have relatively bad dice (which appears to be the case on this site quite often from what i read)
Similar can be said for the hat bonuses.

Given the drops are:
2P: 34 + 46N
3P: 34 + 12N
4P: 26 + 10N
5P: 20 + 14N
6P: 17 + 12N
7P: 14 + 16N
8P: 13 + 10N

i think there is quite a large possibility that the smaller player games will not end early and even doubles/trips/quads will not be easy.

I did like the idea of the collection bonus initially but then examined the map and saw that availability of that bonus is very limited (mainly to the inner Amazon region) because of the distance of those hat stations from each other. This would mean that the hat bonuses come into play rather late in games and not early as planned for extra early bonus, and in this sense they would not much different from continent bonuses of which there are already many line bonuses to accommodate.

this map is going to come down to a lot of luck on the drop

is not this the case in most every game?

if I drop 2 stations in a 3 line station, all I need is to take one neutral for a +2 bonus.

If this is too easy then increase the neutral

[iancanton]

for a map this size (114 terts) that is not a lot of bonuses with 2/3 territorie, considering 8 players may start, even though the majority of games may be 1v1.

the opposite is true. small maps (such as madrid) need small bonuses, while large ones don't, especially ones with over 100 regions. if u have lots of 2-station bonuses, then u must increase the value of most of the larger bonuses above their current level to boost their relative attractiveness, since u cannot decrease a 2-station bonus to less than +1.

I am not convinced that Q line is out or place and pointless and needs enhancing/removal because it was put there (V9) to balance that side of the map when ian wanted to place a similar small bonus down around SAO which i thought was overkill for that area.

i believe i said no such thing. i actually suggested adding more stations to the Z line.

it may not be fun for you...but it might be fun for others who relish the opportunity to gain a small bonus early in the game to assist them on their quest to conquer large continents and their opponents, and this map help in particular those who have relatively bad dice (which appears to be the case on this site quite often from what i read)
Similar can be said for the hat bonuses.

i suspect that most players will leave well alone the large continents in most games because u've ensured that trying to take and hold them is a losing strategy.

this map is going to come down to a lot of luck on the drop

is not this the case in most every game?

certainly not.

if I drop 2 stations in a 3 line station, all I need is to take one neutral for a +2 bonus.

If this is too easy then increase the neutral

u will need at least n4 for any neutral stations that combine a hat bonus with a short line.

Like the throne in Siege or Down town in Montreal. I love these types of maps as it really does happen in life and does not sanitise maps.

i would like to see some small drops as a starting possibility. reading the log in fog to see where they are adds to a game, and the map's appeal.

greenoaks, what do you consider to be small drops? and what is the bit about the maps appeal - please explain.

i don't have a problem with someone dropping a +1 or +2. it takes the blandness out of games.

'do they have a drop, where could it be, better move in this direction to check, better fort this other way to cover myself'

knowing you could be at a slight disadvantage or advantage brings more to a map's appeal than everyone starting identical, every time.

some of the most popular maps are Realms 2/3 & Feudal War. games are interesting because not all starts are equal. overcoming that (or running with it) is satisfying.

greenoaks gives examples of maps where all players start with the same deployment. koontz mentions that the throne in siege! and downtown in montreal add interest; note the focus on a special part of each map, where power is wielded. we can take something from both concepts by using as focus cities the two eye-catching hubs of the map, brasilia and buenos aires, the capitals of the two south american regional superpowers, perhaps by reducing all of the neutrals on these cities to n1 each and increasing the bonuses to +12 and +10 respectively. something like this might force players to keep an eye on these cities in case of a big surprise, without handing out dropped bonuses on a plate.

ian.

[cairnswk]

for a map this size (114 terts) that is not a lot of bonuses with 2/3 territorie, considering 8 players may start, even though the majority of games may be 1v1.

the opposite is true. small maps (such as madrid) need small bonuses, while large ones don't, especially ones with over 100 regions. if u have lots of 2-station bonuses, then u must increase the value of most of the larger bonuses above their current level to boost their relative attractiveness, since u cannot decrease a 2-station bonus to less than +1.

Well, i have my opinion on that, and stick to it.
not reducing 2 station bonuses makes sense, so let's increase the larger bonuses.
What are your suggestions for those increases?

I am not convinced that Q line is out or place and pointless and needs enhancing/removal because it was put there (V9) to balance that side of the map when ian wanted to place a similar small bonus down around SAO which i thought was overkill for that area.

i believe i said no such thing. i actually suggested adding more stations to the Z line.

You are correct, i am wrong (again - speaking muddled) and i apologise, ian, for using that reference for that argument.
however, and i have reviwed the original conversations...i am unwilling to withdraw that small bonus because of my beleif that this map doens't have to play like classic, and i am still of the view that this map could be good with those small bonuses to start.
If you know me by now, i do not stick to the necessarily normal views that others may hold.

it may not be fun for you...but it might be fun for others who relish the opportunity to gain a small bonus early in the game to assist them on their quest to conquer large continents and their opponents, and this map help in particular those who have relatively bad dice (which appears to be the case on this site quite often from what i read)
Similar can be said for the hat bonuses.

i suspect that most players will leave well alone the large continents in most games because u've ensured that trying to take and hold them is a losing strategy.

well, ian, i disagree with you again on this one.
i remember a lengthy game (50 rounds) on Rail Asia, where tnb and i pussy-footed around between red and white lines gathering bonuses for some time.
and then in the end two other players were attacked and they didn't like my strategy of trying to move the game on from "empire-building"...btw, i won.
what i am trying to say, is that there are all sorts of strategies that might be available to everyone playing in largers games and the outcome is no certain matter, even though some players like to play "conservatively" and stick to classic play.
The game is based on RISK, and if you don't take risks then you'll neven know what can and cannot be accomplished. so i suspect that classic game is not going to apply here, and nor should it since this is an entirely different map.
There are probably many ways we can balance the map.

this map is going to come down to a lot of luck on the drop

is not this the case in most every game?

certainly not.

Hehe! the amount of comments that i've seen on the site that entertain in my direction with the dice does not favour your response.

if I drop 2 stations in a 3 line station, all I need is to take one neutral for a +2 bonus.

If this is too easy then increase the neutral

u will need at least n4 for any neutral stations that combine a hat bonus with a short line.

OK, let's do that then....quite open to doing that if it makes all that difference.

Like the throne in Siege or Down town in Montreal. I love these types of maps as it really does happen in life and does not sanitise maps.

i would like to see some small drops as a starting possibility. reading the log in fog to see where they are adds to a game, and the map's appeal.

greenoaks, what do you consider to be small drops? and what is the bit about the maps appeal - please explain.

i don't have a problem with someone dropping a +1 or +2. it takes the blandness out of games.

'do they have a drop, where could it be, better move in this direction to check, better fort this other way to cover myself'

knowing you could be at a slight disadvantage or advantage brings more to a map's appeal than everyone starting identical, every time.

some of the most popular maps are Realms 2/3 & Feudal War. games are interesting because not all starts are equal. overcoming that (or running with it) is satisfying.

greenoaks gives examples of maps where all players start with the same deployment. koontz mentions that the throne in siege! and downtown in montreal add interest; note the focus on a special part of each map, where power is wielded. we can take something from both concepts by using as focus cities the two eye-catching hubs of the map, brasilia and buenos aires, the capitals of the two south american regional superpowers, perhaps by reducing all of the neutrals on these cities to n1 each and increasing the bonuses to +12 and +10 respectively. something like this might force players to keep an eye on these cities in case of a big surprise, without handing out dropped bonuses on a plate.

ian.

Happy to do that.

[cairnswk]

ian,

for short lines with hat stations, allocated to:
n4 - PAC
n4 - UIO
n4 - SCL

n1 allocated to BSB and BUE stations
plus bonuses adjusted to 12 and 10 respectively.

ian, i am thinking now with those n1 bonuses for that big a city bonus, it's going to be very easy to take in inital stages of the game, and player could be fighting very early on for that big bonus.
i therefore propose that at least one station be n3 in BSB and BUE. and this should belong to shortest line.
thus I Campo Grande in BSB would be n3, and
N Santiago would be n3.

Version 17

[Teflon Kris]

i would like to see some small drops as a starting possibility. reading the log in fog to see where they are adds to a game, and the map's appeal.

I agree with you to a certain extent, i have never been one to think a map should be totally balanced - right from Pearl Harvour, however, there are many on the site who would scream their tits off if the maps are not balanced and someone starts with a bonus, particularly in 1v1

Yeah, it is unfair on my cat, my son and my neighbours if maps are made which allow for bonus drops - CC will be help responsible for any damage to their eardrums !!

[Aleena]

Only way to make any map truely balanced is to know - whom is going to move first - and then design the map with a small scaling of extra troops in order of who plays next... For example...

If it's a two player map - then the second player needs to be set-up with a few more troops then the first player - for the first player automatically gains three advantages right off the bat. The first player get's his initial drop before the second player - allowing them to initially start with more troops then the second player has on the board - plus they get the advantage of being able to select the weakest target to strike before anyone has the chance to defend it - and on top of that they get the reinforcement bonus to secure their border before the second place player even get's a move...

Now the second place player not only lost his weakest region right out the bat - but they can not take it back because of the reinforcements placed on top of it making it more defended then any normally started position..

So to really balance out a game - second, third , fourth ect players need to start with a slightly stronger army then the player before them.

[koontz1973]

cairns, following ians 4 neutral rule, I would like to see one in MAO, PVH, UIO and SCB. These all follow the small lines, either on or very close. Been playing around with the neutrals, and thinking about it, a 4 in all two line hat stations would be best. Easy enough to take when needed, but hard enough to make players think about it. This would solve a lot of problems that I seem to be having with an overwhelmingly good drop finishing the game in round one. With over 100 stations, these games are not going to be quick to finish.

Secondly, I count 45 territs (I may of miscounted but this is pretty close), either part of a hat station or adjacent to them. This to me seems a pretty nice number to split up into positions. 8 positions with 5 territs each. Have a max of 3 given out to allow some randomness as well. This should allow for most easily dropped bonuses to have at least one station held by the opponent.

[cairnswk]

i would like to see some small drops as a starting possibility. reading the log in fog to see where they are adds to a game, and the map's appeal.

I agree with you to a certain extent, i have never been one to think a map should be totally balanced - right from Pearl Harvour, however, there are many on the site who would scream their tits off if the maps are not balanced and someone starts with a bonus, particularly in 1v1

Yeah, it is unfair on my cat, my son and my neighbours if maps are made which allow for bonus drops - CC will be help responsible for any damage to their eardrums !!

Lol...not sure what that is all about except for its literal translation.

Only way to make any map truely balanced is to know - whom is going to move first - and then design the map with a small scaling of extra troops in order of who plays next... For example...

If it's a two player map - then the second player needs to be set-up with a few more troops then the first player - for the first player automatically gains three advantages right off the bat. The first player get's his initial drop before the second player - allowing them to initially start with more troops then the second player has on the board - plus they get the advantage of being able to select the weakest target to strike before anyone has the chance to defend it - and on top of that they get the reinforcement bonus to secure their border before the second place player even get's a move...

Now the second place player not only lost his weakest region right out the bat - but they can not take it back because of the reinforcements placed on top of it making it more defended then any normally started position..

So to really balance out a game - second, third , fourth ect players need to start with a slightly stronger army then the player before them.

Thanks for your thoughts...way to do that Aleena is to have starting postions hard-wired, and i prefer the random drop to happen for this

cairns, following ians 4 neutral rule, I would like to see one in MAO, PVH, UIO and SCB. These all follow the small lines, either on or very close. Been playing around with the neutrals, and thinking about it, a 4 in all two line hat stations would be best. Easy enough to take when needed, but hard enough to make players think about it. This would solve a lot of problems that I seem to be having with an overwhelmingly good drop finishing the game in round one. With over 100 stations, these games are not going to be quick to finish.

Secondly, I count 45 territs (I may of miscounted but this is pretty close), either part of a hat station or adjacent to them. This to me seems a pretty nice number to split up into positions. 8 positions with 5 territs each. Have a max of 3 given out to allow some randomness as well. This should allow for most easily dropped bonuses to have at least one station held by the opponent.

koontz..UIO and SCB already have n4.
PVH - i disagree that this needs 4 as there a 3 and this is surrounded by 5 station lines, not small lines. Same with CRS.
MAO - M I will adjust to 4.
As for the good drop. this will come down to luck in random placement, but could prove otherwise in manual placement in smaller games.
Agree, these games are not going to end quickly

in second half, are you suggesting we place a max of +3 on the drop?

[cairnswk]

Version 18

[jigger1986]

Sorry no help at all, I just wanted to say that visually this map looks amazing!

[cairnswk]

Sorry no help at all, I just wanted to say that visually this map looks amazing!

that is a big help for an opinion. Thanks jigger1986.

[koontz1973]

in second half, are you suggesting we place a max of +3 on the drop?

No, I was suggesting that with the positions, have a max of 3 positions handed out. With 8 positions, in a two player game only 6 will be assigned. The other two will go into the normal drop. Adding a touch of randomness to the map starts.

What are your thoughts on adding some starting positions to the map?

[cairnswk]

in second half, are you suggesting we place a max of +3 on the drop?

No, I was suggesting that with the positions, have a max of 3 positions handed out. With 8 positions, in a two player game only 6 will be assigned. The other two will go into the normal drop. Adding a touch of randomness to the map starts.

What are your thoughts on adding some starting positions to the map?

to be honest, i am not in favour of either of those ideas. i'd prefer to have completely random drop (or manual placement) as per the game engine.

[iancanton]

I was suggesting that with the positions, have a max of 3 positions handed out. With 8 positions, in a two player game only 6 will be assigned. The other two will go into the normal drop. Adding a touch of randomness to the map starts.

What are your thoughts on adding some starting positions to the map?

to be honest, i am not in favour of either of those ideas. i'd prefer to have completely random drop (or manual placement) as per the game engine.

even if it helps to reduce the number of neutrals?

to rectify the fact that bolivia, being located centrally, looks hard to hold, i propose a change to the map layout by adding a border station to the C line and removing a border station from the V line. change the name of POI potosi to UYU uyuni, which is the actual meeting point of lines from LPB (V), ATG (C) and, originally, SLA (T); add the fcab railway from ATG (C) to UYU (C); remove LTC (V), since the two railway lines never connected there (and it also helps to reduce the difficulty of the peru bonus).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyuni
http://www.antofagasta.co.uk/about-us/history.aspx
http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?scr ... 5000100007

try reducing the guyanese bonus to +1 because, including the hat bonus, there will be a total of +2 for holding 5 stations, of which 2 are border stations.

ian.

[cairnswk]

I was suggesting that with the positions, have a max of 3 positions handed out. With 8 positions, in a two player game only 6 will be assigned. The other two will go into the normal drop. Adding a touch of randomness to the map starts.

What are your thoughts on adding some starting positions to the map?

to be honest, i am not in favour of either of those ideas. i'd prefer to have completely random drop (or manual placement) as per the game engine.

even if it helps to reduce the number of neutrals?

to be honest, originally i had 10 neutrals on the map but changes since then have added more...not my preferred option...but i like to give a little but not everything

to rectify the fact that bolivia, being located centrally, looks hard to hold, i propose a change to the map layout by adding a border station to the C line and removing a border station from the V line. change the name of POI potosi to UYU uyuni, which is the actual meeting point of lines from LPB (V), ATG (C) and, originally, SLA (T); add the fcab railway from ATG (C) to UYU (C); remove LTC (V), since the two railway lines never connected there (and it also helps to reduce the difficulty of the peru bonus).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyuni
http://www.antofagasta.co.uk/about-us/history.aspx
http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?scr ... 5000100007

Done, one of the things well researched and explained and i'm happy with so given.

try reducing the guyanese bonus to +1 because, including the hat bonus, there will be a total of +2 for holding 5 stations, of which 2 are border stations.
ian.

if Guyanese is reduced to +1, that makes +2 bonus for the guyanese line and the hat station GEO.
and there is a +2 M line right beside it, and +4 J line on the other end?
I'm not totally in favour of this.

[cairnswk]

Version 19

[koontz1973]

Cairns, hats, what would be your thoughts on removing the hats from 3 stations (PAC, REC, SCB). I am asking this as it would make my life a lot easier. Those 3 are in the corners of the map.

SCB down south is sort of OK, but you have line N and SCL hat station as well there. This means for a defensible position or 3 regions, you can get +6. Way to high even when you consider the amount of regions you need to take.
REC is next to Q line. This is making this corner very attractive IMO and a great place to hide considering neutrals.
PAC is just not going to happen as it is. You have a line for +1, a hat station for +1 all defended by one region. I know the argument of Central America is not South America but I can live with it being on. It really is just that bonus set up that is bad. Considering you also have UIO 2 stops away.
UIO is another station I am not a fan of. Same with PAC, you have a very short line with a hat on it.

All this is, whilst making hot spots for players to fight over, you will end up with the rest of the board being ignored and the winner[s] of these areas winning the game in the end. Two solutions to this would be to remove all hats from the board (not my option as I do like them) or to remove or move them from all lines less than 5 stations long. So have them bordering lines at stations like PVH or central to a line like IQT.

Thoughts?

[cairnswk]

Cairns, hats, what would be your thoughts on removing the hats from 3 stations (PAC, REC, SCB). I am asking this as it would make my life a lot easier. Those 3 are in the corners of the map.

The hats were put there to give the map S. American flavour, and indeed the locals wear a lot of hats.
It would make your life a lot easier, but that is not "my objective"
Removing the hats is not an option, as this is part of the required "unique" gameplay option

SCB down south is sort of OK, but you have line N and SCL hat station as well there. This means for a defensible position or 3 regions, you can get +6. Way to high even when you consider the amount of regions you need to take.

Yes, one has to overcome 8 regions, two of which are part of the BUA system
with a total of n11 to overcome before that +6 becomes effective, and
if two players are determined there, it could be civil war in Argentina - quite the setting i'd say.
It was you who wanted the C LIne connection to SCB,
in one way i imagine the +6 might not be a problem if there was no back end to it, and the connection was only through BUA.
However, i propose that SCL hat is moved to ARI, which reduced the +6 to +5
and with the hat on ARI there are mo other close small bonuses involved.
This doesn't affect the neutral required for small N line since there is n3 on the BUA N

REC is next to Q line. This is making this corner very attractive IMO and a great place to hide considering neutrals.

OK, but REC is not part of the Q line, and certainly doesn't have the appeal that SCB/SCL might have.
REC is part of two of the biggest lines on the map to get those large bonuses, the hat might be needed.
I can remove the REC/PNZ connection as concession.

PAC is just not going to happen as it is. You have a line for +1, a hat station for +1 all defended by one region. I know the argument of Central America is not South America but I can live with it being on. It really is just that bonus set up that is bad. Considering you also have UIO 2 stops away.

I was considering moving the hat to SCI, however, this would fulfill requirement for n3 on H Line.
I don't really see UIO as being a problem. if one player takes the H Line and the other takes D Line, then it's up to them to fort adequately to hold them less they deserve to lose these small lines.

UIO is another station I am not a fan of. Same with PAC, you have a very short line with a hat on it.

Nothing doing here I'm afraid.

All this is, whilst making hot spots for players to fight over, you will end up with the rest of the board being ignored and the winner[s] of these areas winning the game in the end. Two solutions to this would be to remove all hats from the board (not my option as I do like them) or to remove or move them from all lines less than 5 stations long. So have them bordering lines at stations like PVH or central to a line like IQT.

Thoughts?

au contraire koontz.
if any player is worth their salt, who'd want to fight over small bonuses only...this gives other players options of going for the longer lines with larger bonuses and being relatively successful to counteract the smaller bonuses.
The correct solution is to work with the hats but get them in the correct place.

[cairnswk]

Version 20

[koontz1973]

au contraire koontz.
if any player is worth their salt, who'd want to fight over small bonuses only...this gives other players options of going for the longer lines with larger bonuses and being relatively successful to counteract the smaller bonuses.

But would you not say that a short line or hat bonus is easier to get than a long line. So while you try for your long line, I can grab 1 or 2 short/hat bonuses. This would make it a lot harder for you to get or keep your long line bonus. To paraphrase you, any player worth his salt will always grab the easiest bonus on the board to give an advantage in the long run.

The correct solution is to work with the hats but get them in the correct place.

Hence the reason I said about those stations. I cannot seem to contend with those four stations. Mainly UIO and PAC. Both are on short lines, easily defensible and allow you to expand to the other. Both should be removed or moved. Removing the hat from SCL was good, I can live with SCB now as it is.

[cairnswk]

au contraire koontz.
if any player is worth their salt, who'd want to fight over small bonuses only...this gives other players options of going for the longer lines with larger bonuses and being relatively successful to counteract the smaller bonuses.

But would you not say that a short line or hat bonus is easier to get than a long line. So while you try for your long line, I can grab 1 or 2 short/hat bonuses. This would make it a lot harder for you to get or keep your long line bonus. To paraphrase you, any player worth his salt will always grab the easiest bonus on the board to give an advantage in the long run.

No, while you are concentrating on your short line bonuses, i may have good luck with dice and easily obtain a long line bonus. Another possibility with so much reliant on the dice.

The correct solution is to work with the hats but get them in the correct place.

Hence the reason I said about those stations. I cannot seem to contend with those four stations. Mainly UIO and PAC. Both are on short lines, easily defensible and allow you to expand to the other. Both should be removed or moved. Removing the hat from SCL was good, I can live with SCB now as it is.

koontz,
If we move either hat from UIO or PAC, we'll be required to issue new neutrals and we've already come to agreement on 25.
unless another station is added to C American line, or the hat is moved to SCI and another single station added to some line where there is a space.
to make 115 stations with 26 neutrals to get the 89 GN.

[koontz1973]

If we move either hat from UIO or PAC, we'll be required to issue new neutrals and we've already come to agreement on 25.

Instead of moving them, remove them. You keep your lines as they are, neutrals can stay as they are (reduced to a 3). That to me is a win win.

Another option would be, as you say, add a station to C line and move the hat to SCI. Not a fan of this at all because of IQT. Also, you will add another neutral to the board.

[cairnswk]

If we move either hat from UIO or PAC, we'll be required to issue new neutrals and we've already come to agreement on 25.

Instead of moving them, remove them. You keep your lines as they are, neutrals can stay as they are (reduced to a 3). That to me is a win win.

Another option would be, as you say, add a station to C line and move the hat to SCI. Not a fan of this at all because of IQT. Also, you will add another neutral to the board.

No! removing them is not going to happen.
The C Line (btw) was meant to be the C American Line, but it didn't come out that way.