Does this mean that builds must be finalized? I've had some situations where I've had one build site available and one build available, and it says something like "Build an Army at Marseilles" with the "at Marseilles" part automatically filled in. If I don't finalize, are the automatically generated orders (building an army) carried out?

usually or it will ask you next turn

yes.
But you can change the 'build army' to 'wait until a later turn to build'.

It WILL autobuild if you only have one space to build, right?

yes, if you don't do anything about it, but you can change it manually.

But with multiple SC's open, it will not auto-build, right?

Correct.

Hmm, that doesn't sound right to me. If that's the case, Do people think that should be changed so that the default is to defer the build?

Yes, that would be consistent with the default hold orders, so it makes sense. Also, I think it fits best with the rulebook, which (while not explicitly forbidding builds) talks about CD countries only as holding and (this being the tricky part, of course) disbanding units.

No wait, I'm wrong; it DOES explicitly say ‘No new units are raised for the country.’. So yes, definitely, the default should be to disband, so if someone does nothing, then they get the result as if they were CD.

Or maybe you know all that already and are just looking for users to say: Yes, let the default orders be the same as the CD orders in all cases. I would agree with that.

My personal feeling is that the current situation is based on false premises.

I think both missed turns and CDs should get the same treatment - the system move them in the 'best way it can calculate'.

What we have currently is a policy that penalizes CDs and missed turns. I think the goal should be to have a policy that minimizes the unbalance caused from a CD or missed turn.

I mean, the simple question is:
Do most of us prefer the 'bingo-factor' from someone going CD/missing a turn? Clearly not realising it's random, the benefits can go any way for all others, and it will happen to us.
Or do we prefer a system that aims to negate the effects of a CD/missed turn?

Ivo, here's the problem I see with that:

Let's say I log on and see you as France haven't logged on since the phase began. I know the comp will build armies at all of your home SCs, so I as England decide to build F London to take the EC, knowing that there's nothing you can do about it. If the computer had done no builds, you would get a chance to use your builds to make fleets to fight me the next year.

Likewise, if the computer decided F Brest was better, I as England would instantly feel threatened, and again, have to try and take the EC (though it would be a devilish way to set up the stab without looking as bad... "I didn't meant to build F Brest, the computer did it for me!")

This is only one example, but I feel like they abound.

rratclif - I'm not sure you understand my suggestion? The point here is not that we should expect the software to make the best decision for the player - the point is that it is better to have a defaul action, rather than a defaul inaction.

In your example - do you think it is better to have no army in BRE and just leave it empty?

Yes, I do. Should France miss the build phase, they can try and fight for a year then use that build how they please. If it is forced upon them, the enemy knows what it'll be and they are stuck with whatever the computer chose (unless they find a way to disband something)

I agree the default should be do nothing. We should have to anticipate the opposition moves not have them pre-chosen.

The Idea of a CD country in the real world would be where the current govenrment is overthrown and everything goes into Chaos for a period. i.e Armies and Navies do not follow orders (Hold) Workers Revolt (Stop Working and therefore not Building)

When a new government is chosen then Order is restored which may include different alliances to the original ones.

I.E German reunification which at the time Russia was not happy about.

I must admit I do see logic in having the computer issue support-holds automagically, rather than holds.
As for builds, I'm not sure.

No to the default action rather than inaction, because the "best" course of action very much relies on the diplomatic dynamic.

I while back I wrote "the default should be to disband" but I meant "the default should be to DEFER"; I hope that was clear. (Although the default in retreat phase should be to disband, for similar reasons.)